| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5424871 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic (where is it?) Note: scheduled for opening in October. |
| 2 | ~ 13 hours ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190617566 . I believe this is the last Family Medicine Clinic to be mapped in urban area. Looking back, I generally feel bad to have accidentally started some sort of map quest, but in terms of exploration and Public Good™, it's still arguably worth it. Would recommend, only if you really have the energy and effort to see it to the end. Closing. | |
| 5544825 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 18 days ago | opened | marcolibrary ♦9 | Unable to answer "这条人行横道两端有触觉铺装吗？" – 有號誌的行人穿越道 – https://osm.org/node/3141194073 via StreetComplete 63.4: One side only |
| 2 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We have "=partial" (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving ) but that doesn't specify which side has tactiles. While we review existing documentation, do you know which side has tactile paving and which side does not? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 1. For the status quo, I prefer adding `sidewalk:left:tactile_paving=yes` + `sidewalk:right:tactile_paving=no` 2. North https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HK_HV_跑馬地_Happy_Valley_黃泥涌道_Wong_Nai_Chung_Road_Shan_Kwong_Road_July_2020_SS2_03.jpg | |
| 4 | ~ 15 hours ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | An agent suggested having separate kerbs with tactile_pacing = yes/no. This seems significantly more manageable. | |
| 5 | ~ 15 hours ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190613700 ; closing. | |
| 5296571 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | There are no bus relations here, which is nice. One challenge is to align this correctly along the hillside. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Actually, if we also check the nearby roads, then the changeset would also involve bus relations. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We will start with the physical separation itself, with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185268030 | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It seems there are blocking issues that I am entirely unable to deduce/guess. | |
| 6 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | I see this mapping has largely been improved. The discussions about `bridge=` can happen elsewhere. Closing. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 8 | ~ 5 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The bridge issue indeed concludes itself. Not closeable yet. The scheduled next step is to confirm that the bus relations are not ruined due to the changes. Holding open until (hopefully quick) inspection of related bus relations reveal no changeset-caused problems. Given that it was me who started work on this note, it makes sense for me to see it to completion, which I haven't done so yet. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I think @Patrickov has already done that? | |
| 10 | ~ 15 hours ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It sounds grand, but it's just a quick visual inspection in iD to ensure nothing is broken. | |
| 11 | ~ 15 hours ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Visual inspection: no broken bus relations. Closing. | |
| 5575090 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 days ago | opened | 1F616EMO ♦9 | Here should be a platform_exit_only for all routes, and the two platforms ahead should both be platform_entry_only. |
| 2 | ~ 18 hours ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Questionable. It seems when traffic is light, shuttles may just reach the proper position and do standard boarding/alighting. Standard (franchised) buses may perform alighting outside of the proper position when not for "Alighting Stop" (similar to here), but we do not mark those positions as platform_exit_only. Similar arguments may apply here. We may see if the "light traffic" hypothesis is correct. | |
| 5583304 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 19 hours ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33412221 was closed due to construction works. Now that construction has completed, is this now open for usage? |
| 2 | ~ 17 hours ago | commented | 1F616EMO ♦9 | I did not see any construction signs earlier today when I visit the segment between node/2386574557 and node/378038282, between Pommerenke and CC Chapel. | |
| 3 | ~ 16 hours ago | closed | 1F616EMO ♦9 | ||
| 5566899 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I think there is a charging station here? |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Future reference: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.320344873045016&lng=114.20624455633003&z=19.9&pKey=2688531754897558&focus=photo&x=0.3666195147661605&y=0.7311911627040021&zoom=1.0002068871324479 | |
| 3 | ~ 22 hours ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190591256 ; closing. | |
| 5508504 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "In Kwun Tong https://www.flowerdeliveryhongkong.com" 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: Flower Delivery Hong Kong POI types: shop-florist #organicmaps ios 2026.09.05-5-ios |
| 2 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Two parts: make a new node at Kwun Tong, and then clean up here. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | New node placed https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190552010 | |
| 4 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Indoor shop space is generally unstable, so we just delete it https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190552070 | |
| 5 | ~ 1 day ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | All done; closing. | |
| 5351891 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | concern: messy hotels (nodes) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 "Kingland Apartments" has the address right about here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Note that Chungking Mansions https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39315991 is currently tagged as: - commercial landuse - retail building - apartment-style residences | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, this turns out to be another Chungking-style building. There are a lot of guesthouses listed here. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We will start with the building itself, done by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185996585 . Exact guesthouse list, they will be checked / typed in at a later date. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | There are 16 levels * 8 slices = 128 units. Hopefully there are enough space for all of them. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | With a closer look, among these 128 slots, some are unoccupied/unlisted, while some are merged together,, so it's not too bad after all. There should be enough space. Do it by parts I guess. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 1/F to 4/F https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190551718 | |
| 5540564 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 20 days ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Situation: Edit War @kingkingHK is unable to accept that a small segment of Sha Tin Road is highway=secondary . The main issue is that there is a small section of Sha Tin Road that provides access to IVE (Sha Tin). This does not satisfy the community consensus that roads of motorway class (entering) must only reach the motorway and nowhere else. |
| 2 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | We can discuss at changeset discussion. No need for a note. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 days ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Well, the existence of an edit war does justify an open note, at least until the situation is actually resolved. Closing the note without really addressing the allegation of edit war does not sound like "situation resolved". | |
| 5 | ~ 6 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Note isn't for discussion. Linking to the changeset in `note=` on them is enough. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Purposes of notes aside, pragmatically, basically no one reviews notes in HK other than us (me vectorial kovoschiz). When we all know about this ongoing conflict, creating a note does not seem have any purpose. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 8 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 9 | ~ 1 day ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 10 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | This does not seem like a "resolved situation" to me. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 day ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | But does it warrant a note??????????? What benefit does this note bring???????????????????????????? | |
| 5476355 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | Tam Wing Fan Innovation Center is opposite this building |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I believe we generally do not map university internal facilities. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Publicly accessible, publicly joinable, and public interest ones are fine. This is a prominent facility. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Alright, we can try to figure out HKU access rights and then perhaps do this note. | |
| 5567814 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 5 days ago | opened | marcolibrary ♦9 | Unable to answer "它在建筑物内部吗？" – 自動外置式心臟去纖顫器 – https://osm.org/node/9051018281 via StreetComplete 63.4: 在戶外，市民可直接拿取的位置 |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190535692 ; closing. | |
| 4922350 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo: review / update Lee Garden Eight |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Could you please elaborate on what needs reviewing/updating? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | * as in exists in the OSM map data | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 . | |
| 6 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The objective of this note was to really look at what was supposed to be happening here. The motivation was the confusion caused by past buildings intersecting with future buildings. By survey, this site is near completion. We may then give this back to the general stream, so we no longer need a note to track this. Closing. | |
| 5434515 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Robin J ♦3 | "Restaurant is now closed and occupied by Corks wine bar" OSM snapshot date: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: 曼谷食堂 Bangkok Canteen POI types: amenity-restaurant cuisine-thai #organicmaps android 2026.07.23-6-Google |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We are eventually led to the page https://inline.app/booking/-NvUr_9Yso5kLiFC505r:inline-live-3?language=en , which agrees with this note. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190534967 ; closing. | |
| 5034438 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?) |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190534902 ; closing. | |
| 861105 | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | opened | Battlealvin2009 | There should be a footway in this area. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct, feature exists IRL. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | May you clarify how this footway is aligned? eg connects Stadium Path to somewhere else? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Sorry for the uninformative comment earlier - honestly I'm not sure either, there's a very twisty and turny stair starting from the south-west end of Stadium Path, and most of it is behind a locked gate (slope maintenance path iirc), making it harder to survey. Also I'm pretty sure there's a whole unmapped footway network in this area that's much more extensive than the one I was talking about. Another factor is that I was simply tired on the day I surveyed this and didn't want to climb steps. Re-survey recommended. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Well understandable; if it's a slope maintenance path, might as well pretend it doesn't exist at the moment. It wouldn't affect general map usage. | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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. | |
| 9 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, we do have a staircase here, but indeed it quickly leads to a slope maintenance path. We will just do simple and finish. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190534630 ; closing. | |
| 5544783 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 18 days ago | opened | marcolibrary ♦9 | Unable to answer "这条街有人行道吗?" – 桂芳街 Kwai Fong Street (住宅區道路) – https://osm.org/way/735263716 via StreetComplete 63.4: 兩旁有行人路 |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190534506 ; closing. | |
| 5544781 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 18 days ago | opened | marcolibrary ♦9 | Unable to answer "这条街有人行道吗?" – 梅馨街 Mui Hing Street (住宅區道路) – https://osm.org/way/85485968 via StreetComplete 63.4: 兩旁有行人路 |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190534506 ; closing. | |
| 5544752 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 18 days ago | opened | marcolibrary ♦9 | Unable to answer "这条街有人行道吗?" – 藍塘道 Blue Pool Road (住宅區道路) – https://osm.org/way/149397180 via StreetComplete 63.4: 兩旁有行人路 |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190515119 ; closing. | |
| 5501354 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | lzy030513 ♦0 | Relatively spacious area, transportation hub, with some conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles (lack of barrier measures), and no facilities for rest and relaxation |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | No, you are supposed to wait in the lounge inside Times Square | |
| 3 | ~ 2 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | So, what are we supposed to do here (in terms of OSM mapping)? | |
| 5058584 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Should Tai Hang Sai Estate still retain landuse=residential? afaik judicial processes are withholding reconstruction, which means this estate is technically still inhabitable. |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Have they not lost all the cases? | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 until later with no action to take. | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Hi there, we are long into December, I guess that means we can close this note with no actions to take? | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Any updates on this note? | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 cases to close, instead of doing work on the entire site at once. This should be a good indicator of what's up. | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | the sidewalk along wai chi street now has beams along it in preparation for demolition | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 different from OSM data, so this note is also not closeable. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 perfectly fine. | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | well man tai house is currently being demolished | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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, and then we will know. | |
| 16 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 residents (unsued) are frustrated, the Company is frustrated, and the Judges are also frustrated. The spiciness is justified, need not feel bad. | |
| 17 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | man lee, man shun and man hong house have been demolished | |
| 18 | ~ 6 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | man on and man tai house have been demolished | |
| 19 | ~ 6 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @HenryEK if you know about the situation, you may create a changeset yourself. | |
| 20 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I believe all residents were evicted some time ago? Then we may make a changeset. Remember this note was created by me to keep track of demolition status, and also determine whether the estate is finally a de jure construction site rather than a de jure housing estate. | |
| 5539576 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-08-26T01:30:29Z POI name: 朗思國際學校 Think International School POI types: amenity-kindergarten #organicmaps ios 2026.09.05-5-ios |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Seems this specific campus closed. https://zh.think.edu.hk/contact | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Amendment: https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/60252458/%E6%9C%97%E6%80%9D%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B%E5%AD%B8%E6%A0%A1%E5%81%9C%E8%BE%A6-%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E5%B1%80%E4%BF%83%E6%A0%A1%E6%96%B9%E7%9B%A1%E5%BF%AB%E9%80%80%E9%82%84%E5%BB%BA%E6%A0%A1%E5%82%B5%E5%88%B8-%E6%9C%AA%E6%8E%A5%E8%BD%89%E6%A0%A1%E6%9F%A5%E8%A9%A2 The primary school closed, but the kindergartens remained. | |
| 5527233 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 27 days ago | opened | 1F616EMO ♦9 | Needs further verification, but as construction of CC Project E is going on and spans over the path, the path probably no longer exist. |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Armchair: it's most probably gone. OSM mostly runs on volunteer efforts, so if you happen to pass by this area, you may have a look, and then update the map. After completing a relevant changeset, you may close this note. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | 1F616EMO ♦9 | The bottom part is definitely gone. I am removing the whole path BOLD'ly, as it cannot function in the way it's mapped anyways. | |
| 5557665 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 10 days ago | opened | Spaci ♦7 | Unable to answer "Welches Material hat die Oberfläche hier?" – Pfad – https://osm.org/way/1250748778 via StreetComplete 63.4: This bridge seems to no longer exist. Attached photo(s): https://streetcomplete.app/p/375782.jpg |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | That's not even a proper ford. Good that they sealed it. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190458777 ; closing. | |
| 5539575 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-08-26T01:30:29Z POI name: 中國銀行（香港） Bank of China (Hong Kong) POI types: amenity-bank #organicmaps ios 2026.09.05-5-ios |
| 2 | ~ 4 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190431853 ; closing. | |
| 5561687 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 days ago | opened | --- | New building has been completed and opened. I forgot what's the name though. |
| 2 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Number should be "33 Hung To Road" | |
| 3 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | See https://www.qifengcapital.com/projects?lang=zh | |
| 5449549 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | missing service road for car park entry and exit |
| 2 | ~ 5 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/601518018 this is not what you are looking for? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | no, theres a small strip of road for the parking lot below the hkia community building | |
| 5523601 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 29 days ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo / issue: Link website says there is a 7-11 here, but 7-11 website doesn't. What is going on? |
| 2 | ~ 24 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | There are no references to 7-eleven in this neighbourhood in OSM. There is literally nothing to do. Dubious identity of this "link website", but not important, because there's nothing to do. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 24 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 1. If it exists, there's something to do 2. It's Link REIT | |
| 5 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | > Link website says there is a 7-11 here > There are no references to 7-eleven ?????????????????? | |
| 6 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.linkhk.com/tc/shop/22000 | |
| 7 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It's not shown in the map, but listed below https://www.7-eleven.com.hk/zh/store https://www.7-eleven.com.hk/sites/default/files/2025-05/5.2-5.5 StoreList.pdf | |
| 8 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Can't blame me for misunderstanding this; "link" is a generic English word. | |
| 9 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | OK, but with this, we can establish that the map component is faulty. I shall automatically believe that the text list is legit, per "website = irl" principle. | |
| 10 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Also, it didn't help that, when OSM Carto was showing a "7 eleven" red text (some sort of commercial/retail feature), and then I tried to open iD to have a look, I found no references of "7 eleven" in OSM. @kingkingHK | |
| 11 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | "Common" sense: Link is a well-known company; public housing shopping centres are run by Link; Link runs a website. Shouldn't be difficult to understand. "Common" sense: if you don't understand, don't instant-close it. | |
| 12 | ~ 21 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Someone tagged the entire shopping mall as 7-11, which is obviously wrong: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185020744 But I didn't know whether I should create a 7-11 node, because I am not even sure if it exists, hence this note. @vectorial8192 given your level of experience in osm I somewhat expect you to be able to look up object histories and understand what happened. | |
| 13 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Taking the simplest interpretation, I could not help but wonder what it means by some sort of HTTP web link website. Of course that counts as "spam" and can be instantly closed with no emotional attachment. (e.g. see protectkhnames) @kingkingHK the lack of any OSM information hinting towards "7 eleven" does not help your cause. At minimum you should leave a placeholder node with like "note=xxx" or "fixme=xxx", and then I will instantly know. This feels like you are deliberately setting me up for some mistake. | |
| 14 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Imo this note is extremely simple to understand. But for preservation of mental sanity, I will not continue arguing on this. | |
| 15 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | @kingkingHK retaining the information on OSM as some sort of live accessible data object would have greatly reduced followup efforts. Now you have made this an ordinary "start from scratch" note. Once again, I am disappointed. | |
| 16 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Anyhow, it must be incorrect to tag information about a shop on the shopping centre building way. There was no meaningful previous data. This is a "start from scratch" note because this is a "start from scratch" situation. | |
| 17 | ~ 5 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Disappointing. While it is definitely wrong to attach shop info onto buildings, this configuration still provides some hints as to where the shop may be located. Past guy might have misunderstood something, then it is easier to followup. @kingkingHK your past actions have wastefully converted this note into a "start from scratch" note when it could have been a "wrong understanding" note that requires minimal effort to fix. | |
| 18 | ~ 3 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @vectorial8192 Can you please explain in simple and concise terms what you think I should have done, and how it would be an improvement compared to what I actually did? | |
| 5128944 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | 清深洗衣專門店 Oceanic Laundry Shop 灣仔晏頓街1號安定大廈 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We have https://www.facebook.com/p/Oceanic-Laundry-SHOP-61565660343314/ , which mentions Shop 1B, but then unlikely to be true when we already have Coco Espresso at this area. Also, website is dead. Do provide more info, or I am closing this. | |
| 7 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Coco espresso is next door. Laundry shop is between https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12189929101 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4796214521 . I have no further info to provide other than a pic of the shopfronts. | |
| 8 | ~ 7 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It's unusual, but OK, in OSM we trust. | |
| 9 | ~ 7 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190279967 ; closing. | |
| 5128947 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | In OSM we trust. | |
| 7 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189595659 ; closing. | |
| 5128950 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: 保仕 乾洗公司 地舖, Shun Pont Commercial Building, 9號 Thomson Rd, Wan Chai |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | In OSM we trust. | |
| 7 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189595469 ; closing. | |
| 5128949 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: 保美洗衣 灣仔盧押道11-13號修頓商業大廈 |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Website https://sammydryclean.com/ disagrees. Do provide more info, or I will close this. | |
| 7 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Seems like I have made a mistake. POI doesn't exist, according to my survey on 1 March. But, rest assured, I have checked again, and the other laundry notes in this area do indeed exist irl as of 1 March. | |
| 5128946 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: Sunshine Laundry Convenience Store 自助洗衣店 http://www.sunshinelaundry.com.hk/ |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189594988 ; closing. | |
| 5128943 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | --- | Missing Location: British Dry Cleaners 英商乾洗 灣仔月街7號 http://www.britishdrycleaners.com/ |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | フーヴァー リー ♦230 | ||
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189594415 ; closing. | |
| 5515909 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Shing Wong ♦1 | 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: 2026-02-16T20:35:12Z POI name: 裕滿人家 Honorary Family POI types: cuisine-chinese amenity-restaurant #organicmaps ios 2026.09.05-5-ios |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We are eventually led to this website https://shop.price.com.hk/HONORARY_KC/contact_us/ which agrees with this note. | |
| 3 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189592654 ; closing. | |
| 5493225 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | M15k_one | 7 eleven shop |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Store finder https://www.7-eleven.com.hk/zh-hant/store_locator disagrees. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | There's always the possibility of it not being up-to-date. A previous Guru 24 was closed. However, there's indeed no recent info. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Guru 24 store list https://guruguruhk.com/article/stores does not list Soho West. The event of a large corporation (7 eleven) not having an up-to-date store list is improbable. Closing. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | How are you so sure? | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | @vectorial8192 I already said Guru 24 was closed | |
| 9 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Another possible case of 7-11 not having an up-to-date store list: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5523601 | |
| 10 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | If you have their app, you could check it. Sometimes apps are more developed and therefore updated than websites, as I have found for OK. | |
| 11 | ~ 24 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I think it was me, but visiting the website is equivalent to visiting the place IRL. Apps are part of the "closed web" and are therefore not eligible for referencing. Closing, hopefully for real this time. | |
| 12 | ~ 24 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 13 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | There's no such restriction | |
| 14 | ~ 23 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It's listed https://7-eleven.hk/sites/default/files/2026-07/7CAFE%20Mango%20&%20Ccoconut%20Frappe%20Cup_Store%20Allocation.pdf https://7-eleven.hk/sites/default/files/2026-09/7CAFE%20X%20niko%20and...%20Coupon%20Booklet%20Redemption_Store%20List_20260921.pdf | |
| 15 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | No comment from me. We can review this some time later. Text lists are generally unintuitive and messy compared to map views. | |
| 16 | ~ 1 day ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | I forgot to check and mention it's shown in the map from "Select a store" on the right of the search bar. They must have some consistency or sync problems. | |
| 5304280 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: why suddenly highway=secondary ? seems can be just highway=tertiary all the way through. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Connaught Road W -> QRW? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 free-standing highway=secondary among highway=tertiary segment does not fit into the overall "coherent hierarchy" principle. Low-resolution rendering would show this segment of highway=secondary with no obvious reason of existence. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 a junction, and here the `=secondary` is between two junctions. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | If no further discussion after a week or two I will close this note. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 (back) to tertiary level. Alternatively, which means I missed why this section should be secondary, do we have some elaboration on why this section is secondary? Hopefully this is not because "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" which is just a very flimsy reason; tertiary roads can join together to form a wide network of tertiary-only roads, no reason why not. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | "two tertiary roads join together to become secondary" is not necessarily true, but can act as a rule of thumb. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | The 2 `=tertiary` have different functionalities. DVRW westbound is a roadway across the part of an area. Whitty St is connecting QRW. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | What needs to be checked? | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Echoing @Kovoschiz; what point can you not make without a survey? | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Whitty Street seems too generic to be highway=tertiary , but Mapillary imagery is incomplete. | |
| 15 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | What is "generic"? | |
| 16 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 segment can be tertiary and it's still OK. | |
| 17 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | No more activity; propose closing. | |
| 18 | ~ 22 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Yeah I am starting to think this could have been a private study, and then I can decide what to do next. Closing. | |
| 19 | ~ 22 days ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 20 | ~ 22 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It's connecting the `=primary` to `=secondary` , which could be promoted | |
| 5129081 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/889581234 construction probably finished, according to aerial imagery. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Construction finished, but somehow I couldn't find the entrance irl. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | If I remember correctly I went near your coordinates, but failed to find any entrances. Although maybe I just missed it. | |
| 6 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, it does open to the other side with an unusual geometry. | |
| 7 | ~ 27 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189245610 ; closing. | |
| 5521708 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | 1F616EMO ♦9 | This is a roundabout, not a triangle. |
| 2 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Can confirm from both aerial imagery and street imagery (Mapillary). Would have been left untouched if no street imagery exists, though I personally should have known more about this. | |
| 3 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We will start with the roundabout shape, done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189244315 | |
| 4 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Then, relations cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189245199 | |
| 5 | ~ 27 days ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | All done; closing. | |
| 5519924 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: 又一堂 101 Learning Mall POI types: amenity-kindergarten #organicmaps ios 2026.09.05-5-ios |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We see the company was (to be) dissolved https://www.stheadline.com/society/3272362/%E9%80%A3%E9%8E%96%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A%E8%A9%B1%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83101%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E9%9B%86%E5%9C%98%E9%81%AD%E7%94%B3%E6%B8%85%E7%9B%A4-1115%E6%8F%90%E8%A8%8A | |
| 5215003 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Whatever happens, this is definitely not a "grill spot / picnic site". | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189074201 ; closing. | |
| 5451713 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746368284 suspicious placement/existence |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | From street imagery, at least we can see there is some sort of shop space over here. Very unexpected, but OK. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | "Obviously" no problem here. Closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | No wait, what?! | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The fact that there apparently exists a corporate office which is not listed in the website https://www.bachy-soletanche.com.hk/ remains unaddressed. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The key is that, a fancy MNC cannot possibly have a corporate office located at such a cramped lowly place just to do paperwork. Something must be wrong. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189045571 ; closing. | |
| 5493239 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | M15k_one | Arabica coffee shop |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Store finder https://arabicacoffee.hk/locations/locations disagrees. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | @vectorial8192 ? https://arabicacoffee.hk/locations/hong-kong-soho-west | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | My bad. The map somehow does not show all pins. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188954823 ; closing. | |
| 5493233 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | M15k_one | Watsons |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188912978 ; closing. | |
| 5493236 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | M15k_one | 24/7 gym |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188912978 ; closing. | |
| 5493229 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | M15k_one | Yamazaki bakery |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188912978 ; closing. | |
| 5513925 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | peterltn ♦1 | 博康村759阿信屋早已結業多年，請移除標記，謝謝。 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | OSM 依靠志願人士提供/更新資料。如你知道有關的最新消息，你可經註記提供（例：新店舖的資料）。 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188919599 | |
| 4 | ~ 25 days ago | closed | yungyung123 | ||
| 5 | ~ 25 days ago | reopened | yungyung123 | ||
| 6 | ~ 25 days ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 5493829 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | I think this is closed/repurposed? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | So far I see this is downgraded. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188820483 ; closing. | |
| 5501347 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | lzy030513 ♦0 | Despite the gloomy area beneath the overpass, it offers good accessibility. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | No idea what this is supposed to mean in OSM context. 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". | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | `covered=yes` is not yet added | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Bridge area and then infer it. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188808892 ; closing. | |
| 5486474 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | --- | 潤利廣生船舶維修有限公司 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We have https://www.yunlee.com.hk/ but it does not mention any of its maintenance facilities. | |
| 5417944 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | "Some small hinduistic or budhist temple." OSM snapshot date: 2026-07-14T04:20:21Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-place_of_worship #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Rural location, it's basically some Chinese folklore statues. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Improved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187972750 ; closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I don't see how adding a `note=` which by definition is only used by other osm users is any sort of improvement. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | osm contributors* not end users | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Also, government maps agree. Survey recommended. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Call me armchair, but I find "Hinduistic" generally inconsistent with the Chinese settlements in this area. Unsubscribing. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 1. How do you know the note creator got the "Hinduistic" part correct? 2. If you don't know, why do you still close the note with a useless changeset? | |
| 5417923 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | This place does not exist: "On this place is only concrete ramp with flags and some street food / fish sellers" 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: 2026-07-14T04:20:21Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-toilets #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Just by looking at aerial imagery, it's just not possible to have a toilet here. Probable mistake of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1777084780 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187973178 ; closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Might be inaccurate positioning? Shouldn't look at the exact coords only. Need to double verify. Not only trusting reporting user. Was added by an active user https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Wright%20One | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I'm gonna maintain my stance of "armchair contextually impossible" but I am open to let someone else look at this. Could be "rural informal/temporary toilet" but I still think this is contextually unlikely. Unsubscribing. | |
| 5360205 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: online info says this bridge has been restored https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209631718 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | future reference: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14fnVEzksaz/ | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186697823 ; closing. | |
| 5417943 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | "This is a fish market with some restorans along. The restorans is usualy closed - I been in the sunday, I dont know how it showes in diferent days." OSM snapshot date: 2026-07-14T04:20:21Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-marketplace #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It's basically an area for fish sales/eat dual functionality. Some restaurants may not open on Sunday, not sure how they decide to open. Still, the area is not just for commercial uses; it mixes with residential houses. We can keep the node, but the node should not be here anyway. afaik this outer area is for fish/boat handling, | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187973771 ; closing. | |
| 5346823 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: bus terminus will be opened on 21 June, according to online info |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | concern: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184412298 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I was about to ask the changeset for more details, but it declaring YouTube as a source could be a problem. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Ok, as as start, the quoted changeset needs to be reverted for ToS and/or copyright violation. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184417534 | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Someone did something: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184487035 | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, I'm gonna do it. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Btw see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184730262 | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | :( 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | You can still correct the roads to match real life first. I can redo the bus relations Later™ | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | This is unusual. Perhaps more information is needed. | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Should be OK now. Closing. | |
| 3980686 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | 粉嶺沙頭角公路DD39, Lot 2645 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Is this information useful for OSM? | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Imo a plot name is just a fancier/more formal address. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @vectorial8192 If you don't think this can be instant-closed, what actions do you propose to take here? | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 what we want. Sometimes we just hold a feeling and then go there *and after that* we will then know what we want. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 be copyright-waivable. Note is invalid; closing. | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | But we can find it on geoinfo map though. | |
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 these "unclaimed" plots are just "greenfields with extra steps" (see Lands Resumption Ordinance). So far I believe, in OSM, it is perfectly OK to omit greenfields because for well-mapped areas (e.g. HK) every unmapped area can be safely assumed to be greenfields. This updated explanation should work. Leaving open for now, but will close soon-ish. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | No-op for greenfields should be OK. Closing. | |
| 5361744 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Jon Wang ♦40 | Messed up Border Label. Make sure to be careful when updating. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Are you trying to point out any issues in osm data? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 determine the best course of action. ------------- Beyond the vague texts, given the advisory/notification nature of the message, "this could have been an email", or at least a Discord message sent to the HK OSM Discord Server. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Referenced by cross-border duplicate https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5361745 , which explains the border control situation in this area. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | i meant mainlander(i'm one of them)But you guys can get that idea. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 doesn't mean the relevant country borders are automatically extended to reach the frontiers of the Schengen area. Access control should be mapped per the usual access=* tags. Still, the Sha Tau Kok neighbourhood (both CN and HK) can be clarified to indicate the special access statuses. | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 was updated around 2025-2026 to allow for tourism purpose access grants, thus resulting in access=permit . This however still does not permit CN-HK border crossing, which normally should be done at the northwest-side checkpoint, the action which is currently unavailable pending checkpoint renovation works. All is done. Closing. | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Jon Wang ♦40 | ||
| 14 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | wait wait what about the narrow space located southern than the second stone?the area between 新楼街 and south 中英街 wasn't opened for security reasons And were separated by walls,Which doesn't feels like the northern part where you can sure make it equal as the europe circumstances? | |
| 15 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I am not sure if I am understanding this correctly. Having walls at borders is "default settings". If you are referring to the line formed between (22.545253, 114.225428) and (22.544153, 114.226184), then the PRC documents have very clearly stated what is HK and what is not HK. If you are instead referring to the line formed between the 2nd stone and (22.545285, 114.225457), and you are trying to say the buildings can be entered from CN side, then you have discovered a very lucrative position (?) where the buildings legally are located in HK (follows HK laws) but serve primarily CN customers. There seems to have no issues here, though from business money-making perspective, this may be a uniquely valuable location. Please see whether I am understanding this correctly. | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Hello? Am I understanding this correctly? | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | um so Mainland customers could not enter 海山楼 from northern part of 边界管理区 Because it was blocked by the local check point.From my knowledge of the mainland tourist，they'd had to request foe visitor permit(禁区纸) To enter such area(海山楼&新楼街)And they couldn't just visit 中英街 at the same time so nope.The part between the both 新楼街警岗 (I'd be curious if one of them would be called 环城路警岗btw)Wasn't Accessible by both sides And under maintain For undocumented reasons So it miss-aligned with your explanation.（A bit more like Baarle-Nassau/Buffer zone examples perhaps？） | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | also The graph from wikipedia It's a bit outdated，It seems that 海山楼 Is accessible From the Mainland side for a decades ago（If referencing the old picture from Wikipedia）But now encountering an Administrative change | |
| 19 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | the uh,Post Pandemic border Has been changed a lot compared to this old Photograph from common wiki(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shenzhen_&_Hong_Kong_Bianjie_1.JPG) | |
| 20 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I will use several posts to respond to these new points. ------------ Legally speaking, it's crystal clear which side is HK and which side is CN, so the border boundary line has no need for changing. Enforcement (overwhelmingly usually) does not change legal status. In the past, maybe enforcement is more lax, and CN person may "freely" visit 海山樓. However, this is not guaranteed because legally the building is indeed in HK. Following post-pandemic attention from both HK and CN, we can be sure all these ambiguous situations are being addressed one by one. For example, notice HK side now has a new checkpoint building/facility at Chung Ying Street. Older photos largely only shows a tent. This is increased government attention. | |
| 21 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The trend is "increased government attention". Both HK side and CN Shenzhen side has already implemented some sort of tourist permit system (access=private becomes access=permit). Naturally, the next step is to "funnel the people" into the pre-approved facilities, e.g. the new HK-side border checkpoint. This means the existing (?) informal checkpoints at Tsoi Yuen Kok and San Lau Street are very likely to have been closed and discontinued. Specifically for San Lau Street checkpoint, with the quoted photo, I can only say, that's very unsafe, because that is still a river channel, albeit "usually dry". These are reasonable deductions. We can later review the walls etc and then close this. | |
| 22 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | ……mmm ok,after all since I'm a bit unfamiliar with the current status or how the gaps between(river itself) were reinforced,and there would be some upcoming policy update in foreseeable time,i'll put aside some unnecessary problems for now.may be lablein' wall is examine-able for now. if this problem would be transferred/archived in other bulletin boards,there'll be no issues and we can leave & close this note then. | |
| 23 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | For the walls, I can find e.g. https://www.archsd.gov.hk/archsd/html/report2025/tc/case-study/3.html , which describes the (new) walls as part of the Sha Tau Kok improvement works. | |
| 24 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Should be OK now. Closing. | |
| 5474772 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | question: By street imagery, the kerb is actually slightly raised. Does this count as an actual roundabout? Or should we follow markings and still classify this as a mini-roundabout? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | This doesn't affect it. The definition is it's traversable. Other `=mini_roundabout` would have a slight raised dome. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It's the same regardless of whether there's a `kerb=lowered` | |
| 5472313 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | jau4 ♦2 | "Wrong Icon. Currently the Shenzhen metro icon is used but this station belongs to Hong Kong metro." OSM snapshot date: 2026-08-18T16:49:24Z POI name: 羅湖 Lo Wu POI types: railway-station-subway-shenzhen #CoMaps android 2026.08.07-3-Google |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | OSM data already correctly indicates KCR (MTR) control. OSM "Core" itself doesn't deal with rendering complaints; rendering complaints are "Peripheral". Contact your app developer/author (should be CoMaps, judging from the note text). Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | PS: Another possibility is inaccurate low-resolution boundary relations giving the area to Shenzhen. But this is still "Peripheral", and is still not handled by "Core". | |
| 5257117 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We will first start with the junction separation, done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187498105 | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Relations cleaned up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187830251 . All done; closing. | |
| 5455547 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: 日本城 JHC POI types: shop-houseware #organicmaps ios 2026.07.23-6-ios |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Node was already marked as "was:shop" last month. Check your updates. | |
| 5456929 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | New street naming Hong Kong government gazette No. 5070 “Ka Yin Street” 2026-8-14 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Not good enough; you also need the department name! | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | This is the *Lands Department* 2026 GN 5070. If it weren't for community crosschecking I would have instant-closed this for "spam". | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187488879 ; closing. | |
| 5380549 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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" |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We got a tool to track that. Closing. | |
| 5440622 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: pipe works (?); road closure scope? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I leave to PT mappers to determine whether this needs relation updating. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187301529 ; closing. | |
| 5443429 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | Incorect display layers concrete road and water when scale measurment line display 2- 5km. #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | While rendering issues are normally not entertained by OSM, it should be noted that the current pier is mapped as a "no hole multipolygon", which makes it equivalent to a standard polygon and defeats the "multipolygon" classification. This does not seem like the proper mapping method, and should be reviewed. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | This is not a problem technically. Large areas are commonly drawn as `=mutlipolygon` | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I must admit I forgot the "large multipolygon" practice. However, for "industrial area" https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10507292 , seems like it should be "two separate areas which constitute the facility" rather than "a single piece of land that covers open water (?!)". This is the questionable mapping method that I mentioned. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It means a facility, not land. This is caused by a lack of a feature as `man_made=works` is for factories. `=marina` covers both land and water too. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | And `landuse=aquaculture` | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Marina is about using the water to park boats. Aquaculture is about using the water to farm fish. Harbour is about using the land to pack cargo (analogous to train cargo terminal) to/from trucks, which happens to interface with cargo ships, thus the most common implementation is to build the harbour at the coast to allow easy access. The legal/practical scope of the harbour is appropriately documented by the seamark relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10599236 . The facility should remain dry and stay on land. Will make changeset. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | No, that's not the terminology Port: Authority Harbour: Waters Terminal: Land facility `=harbour` is furthermore flawed as I noted there | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Seamarks is an independent data system. It doesn't replace others. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Will leave seamark aside because that does seem like very technical and separate maritime system data. However, again, I have strong doubts that the port area must include the water. e.g. look at Yantian Port https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261283912 , Xinsha Port https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13348421 , Taipei Port https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377915546, Liaoluo Port https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1003279723 , Tuas Mega Port https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004233257 , Busan Port https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6997580 , and possibly many others. They do not include the water. So far I can only find the port at Kua Lumpur https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17814676 being mapped as an "industrial land" that covers the water, just like the one we have here at Hong Kong, but for Kua Lumpur (aerial imagery) we can see the area is a shallow water area and a large manmade pier is added to extend to deeper water to allow for docking, and the left over water area is therefore unreachable/unnavigable, which makes it permissible to be allocated "industrial land" despite technical inaccuracy. Aside from the fact that the overwhelming amount of ports that I find are "single-sided ports", ports that only has one side touching the water (which strongly suggests/hints not including the water area to begin with), are you really sure the mapping schema intends us to also include the water? | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | There's no "must", but it can. Wiki documents "Draw the outline of the harbour area", and it's even combined with `seamark:type=harbour` which can include waters. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261283912 : Doesn't include other side? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261283912 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13348421 : A gap in the middle for some reason https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/377915546 : One of the CT only. Another `landuse=harbour` for the waters is a `industrial=port` synonym. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1003279723/ : Missing `name=` , someone simply drew `landuse=` on land at first. Waters is `=marina` wrongly. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19694664 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004233257 : There's a `boundary=administartive` for land https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19910302 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6997580 : Reusing only the `=coastline` lines | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Ps: Many of them either don't have a feature for the waters at all, or no another feautre enclosing both land and water. I'm guess users have not thought about spatially related them. | |
| 5257118 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: Wo Yi Hop Road: physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I would out point out that it is highly discouraged to glue boundaries to other features. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | (for the non-widened section, it's still toleratable) | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 physical separation issue. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | As it turns out, iD becomes very restrictive when there are hidden features, so we are unfortunately back at the first step. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not too sure what blocker you are facing, but can't you just disconnect the nodes, or use ctrl+up arrow to select the correct way? | |
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | "This can't be disconnected because it connects members of a relation". It just so happens that both sides (bus relations and boundary relations) use the same nodes. Ctrl+down only selects all points of the way (which still disallows disconnecting). Ctrl+up doesn't seem to do anything. | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Admin bounds unglued using JOSM. Very messy. Hopefully basic connectivity is still fine. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Finally, we will start with the junction separation, done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187275533 | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Then, relations are cleaned up https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187277034 All done; finally, closing. | |
| 5435587 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: 吃吧 Chiba POI types: amenity-restaurant #organicmaps ios 2026.07.23-6-ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Believable; we can see the FB/IG pages have ceased activity since last year. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187173599 ; closing. | |
| 5433653 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: Label Bakery POI types: shop-bakery #organicmaps ios 2026.07.23-6-ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | At least the bakery node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4862706645 was placed appropriately, as seen in https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.31686178798101&lng=114.17387870030007&z=17&pKey=740691226587846&focus=photo . We can confirm lineage. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187173395 ; closing. | |
| 5370720 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | Fame Limpid Design |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Seems like this one https://www.famelimpid.com/ | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Feature already exists, but is probably mistagged | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187166519 ; closing. | |
| 5034435 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187166124 ; closing. | |
| 5439394 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | 1F616EMO ♦9 | lift |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I personally do not recommend it. Closing. | |
| 5380551 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: CTB 1M https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14134677 Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We got a tool to track that. Closing. | |
| 5259315 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Imo this doesn't need a note for tracking. Just do it. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Correct in principle, but I simply don't know what this v1/v2 thing means. You can do it if you know this. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 properly (i.e. add stops, also check if the route is correct), and add back `public_transport:version=2`. Which I will not be doing anytime soon because bus route mapping is painful. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ooof, then this can be classified as a large edit, and we will need to track this. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We got a tool to track that. Closing. | |
| 5440378 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue/fixme: (assorted relations) Validator warning: you cannot have "abandoned stops" and "abandoned platforms". |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We got a tool to track that. Closing. | |
| 5440318 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: CTB 81A https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9447656 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9447657 Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | You really don't need to make a note for every validator warning, you know. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | "Also avoid noting lots of data bugs which are already reported by automated Quality Assurance tools." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I see there is no community interest to keep track of those. Alright then. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | There's interest, but not here. Tools are already dedicated to it. | |
| 5440321 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: CTB 85 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3505395 Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | "Also avoid noting lots of data bugs which are already reported by automated Quality Assurance tools." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes | |
| 5034434 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Interesting usage of "amenity=doctors". Not sure if this was previously mentioned, but should bring to discussion regardless. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/187032128 ; closing. | |
| 5296607 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: bridge has physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Distinct from (but is also highly relevant to) https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5296561 . For management convenience, progress is to be recorded over there. | |
| 5437430 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | "Mess on beach, mostly plastic" OSM snapshot date: 2026-07-28T06:39:58Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-waste_disposal #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | From what I understand, OSM does not care about environmental pollution. Call your local volunteering/advocacy group instead. Also, quoting website 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". Other notes in this neighbourhood e.g. describing dangerous seaside paths are relevant to OSM, and may/will be reviewed in detail later. Closing. | |
| 5432688 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | Shenmo Education HK - Abacus & Mental Math Classes Address: Room 533B, Star House, 3 Salisbury Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong Phone: +852 4423 7445 Website: https://abacus-hk.com WhatsApp: +85244237445 Description: Abacus and mental math classes for kids ages 4-12. Certified instructor Teacher Mak, 15 years experience. Small classes 4-6. Hours: Tuesday, Sunday Category: Education / Training / Children's Classes Suggested tags: amenity=training, name=Shenmo Education HK, website=https://abacus-hk.com |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Spam. This is the ocean. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | The address is valid though. This is actionable. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Address may be valid, but website vibes do not feel legit. We have two notes that point to two "distinct" webpages that are 90% same. Cannot be explained by DNS redirect. I am strongly inclined to no-action close this. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Extremely suspicious conceptual duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5432689 | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | The address is extremely convenient to get to though. I see no reason to not survey this first. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Indeed well-accessible, but this feels like a waste of time; my instincts say the business is a fake. | |
| 5416311 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | closed september 2024(?) building should still exist |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186931673 ; closing. | |
| 5384946 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: long term cycleway closure expected due to drainage works |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Iirc it's 23 Jul. Don't count on me though. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, I have info. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186927516 ; closing. | |
| 5425960 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: construction completed? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Website https://www.hksh-emc.com/en/contact-us/index.php says construction is completed. We may see this is a multi-building / multi-plot facility. | |
| 4025846 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | --- | 盛水式加水機 2部 [飲用水] 洗手間下一層 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correct | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | In OSM we trust. In practice there could be multiple fountains at the same location (expecting many people? wheelchair compatibility?), but to indicate that we have a fountain here, one fountain would be enough. People would clarify it when they pass by. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186921482 ; closing. | |
| 5433652 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI has no name POI types: amenity-cafe cuisine-ice_cream #organicmaps ios 2026.07.23-6-ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Node is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4962599422 "HeSheEat" IG page self-lists as "at The Forest", which is next block. But then notice we already have https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12038023830 . Clean up and finish. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Destination updated with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186878454 | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Origin updated with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186879808 All done; closing. | |
| 5433651 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI has no name POI types: shop-bakery #organicmaps ios 2026.07.23-6-ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Refers to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4577538894 "Pheronome". In OSM we trust. However, lacking any "anchoring info" and also current info on this ancient feature, will have to delete. No idea which shop space it is referring to. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186879808 ; closing. | |
| 5433431 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: 香積廚素食館 Amazing Kitchen POI types: amenity-restaurant cuisine-vegetarian #organicmaps ios 2026.07.23-6-ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Dead page. Instant delete/deprecate. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186878075 ; closing. | |
| 5432689 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | Shenmo Education HK - World's Largest Abacus Education Brand Address: Room 533B, Star House, 3 Salisbury Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong Phone: +852 4423 7445 Website: https://shenmo-hk.com Description: World's largest abacus education brand since 1998. Operating in 100+ countries with 2M+ students. Hong Kong branch offering abacus and mental math education. Hours: Tuesday, Sunday Category: Education / Training Suggested tags: amenity=training, name=Shenmo Education HK, website=https://shenmo-hk.com, brand=Shenmo |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Spam. This is the ocean. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | The address is valid though. This is actionable. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Conceptual duplicate; spiritual redirect https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5432688 | |
| 5034471 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Seeing the lack of activity on this note, I'm gonna do an armchair edit. There should be an FMC here, though the way the address is written implies other unknown/undocumented facilities. We will just leave space for these unknown facilities. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186802575 ; closing. | |
| 5079402 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8742956918 should probably be deleted |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Normally "movie scenic location" can be a tourist attraction, but to be frank I have no idea what is being referred to here. | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Seeing that it was created by maps.me, I don't have very high expectations (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MAPS.ME#Questionable_edits). Ideally we should also review his other edits (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Steven%20Lam%20Hiker/history), I just don't have time yet. | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Afaik if there's something physical (e.g. a monument) saying that it is a movie filming location, it might pass at a tourist attraction. However, I could not find anything here, so I think we can simply delete it. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I believe we have something to show that, this feature is legit: https://www.hkallshan.com/bruce-lee_taitam1/ Triangulation matches the view from west side to the houses on the east side in the background. We can clean/improve this, and then finish. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | If it's a `=viewpoint` for the scenery itself, it's acceptable. It happens to be used for movie. `description=` should be used first. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We will just start with using the description field first. Exact situation can be left for future mappers in the general stream. This being an interesting place should mean some mappers would stumble upon this in the future, and then we will have clarification. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186801928 ; closing. | |
| 5164334 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | name seems unsubstantiated |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/thread-2229220-1-1.html ? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ; https://www.hb.gov.hk/tc/publications/housing/public/phpf/Attachment1tc.pdf : no results. | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Island Line because that line itself was mentioned several times in several non-retracted public transport strategy documents. We can prove this NIL concept exists. Operationally, the name "Wah Yat Estate" never existed. <rant>That's why I have been trying to raise awareness on "working names". Those names aren't real!, Just [redacted]</rant> | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @vectorial8192 please see if you are satisfied with the quoted page. | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 sounds much nicer. Plus some other possible issues. On the surface level, that document only explains the Chinese name, and doesn't mention any English names. The name is still (partially) unsubstantiated. Normally this is salvageable, but there's more. I think Internet Archive is an US entity of some sort. I am unfamiliar with US laws (US Fair Use might permit this usage), but by quoting upon the Wayback Machine, this really feels like infringing upon the database rights of the IA, which OSM really tries to avoid. Then, this document came from the HK-gov (allegedly so), but the original was retracted/updated after it was submitted to the Machine, so normally we shouldn't even be able to see this version of the document. That time I read through the Cap 528 (Copyright Ordinance) several times over, and then seeing this situation, I really feel like this copy is an unauthorized copy of government documents, and we literally can't use it. And then, if we need to quote upon the Machine, we will now need to trust an extra organization that that they are "clean", so to speak. Recent governance records of the IA is frankly not good (you are telling me, the Archive was hacked and then stayed broke for 2 whole weeks with no actions?!). Also see ongoing citation crisis at Wikipedia, also involving a supposedly "clean" archive. Way too dangerous; just don't do it. | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 really should not use it, and we should revert the change. Again, this is different from say "past government publication" because here the docs never went past the publication stage. It does not deserve even "was:proposed:name" (can you prove that it was renamed, when it has never gotten any names to begin with?). I am open to calling the DWG on this. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | > 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 ?????? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | As it turns out, before we even get to review the unsubstantiated name, the plot is nearing completion, and the plot has been officially allocated into the new "Wah Fu North Estate". No more unsubstantiated estate names now. Closing. | |
| 5034469 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Crystaltszz | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | Crystaltszz | ||
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Seeing the lack of activity on this note, I'm gonna make an educated guess that this is a single-purpose facility. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186800181 ; closing. | |
| 5034468 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a family medicine clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Seeing the lack of activity on this note, I'm gonna make an educated guess that this is a single-purpose facility. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186799678 ; closing. | |
| 3304147 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | ti-lo ♦618 | 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=aerospace#values Probably multiple ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator "space" may be misinterpreted https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=space#values "science" values should correlate with "faculty" https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/faculty#values |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | seewhyso ♦189 | Amended to science. However "subject" should be sufficient to describe without the use of "faculty" | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | ti-lo ♦618 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | Seems to generic to me. The question was (also) whether several values could apply besides https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/museum=spaceflight | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | "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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | The correct value might be museum=spaceflight;astronomy, also see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amuseum, should also cover "Solar System, cosmology" ? | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 understand how "space" would be misunderstood? | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | `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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 `museum=` . | |
| 10 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:museum_type#Not_very_clear | |
| 11 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | Please try whether this description works for you : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:museum:type%3Dscience | |
| 12 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | No. `*type` never works. It's a meaningless suffix. | |
| 13 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | ti-lo ♦618 | Seems to work in a bunch of cases https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:*:type | |
| 14 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | ar_on_hk | ||
| 16 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Some extra thoughts: Museum tag should be "museum=science" because this museum does demonstrate some science theories. The museum tag should "converge" to the fields of study at universities. Subject tag should be "subject=astronomy". Taginfo shows a lot of country names for this tag, which we can infer as "clarification of history museums". In particular, there is no usage of "subject=cosmology". We should still converge into the wider "subject=astrology", because e.g. this museum iirc demonstrates Doppler effects, gravity, and black holes, and these are general astronomical phenomena. Museum "type" should be avoided. It is ambiguous whether we intend to describe the subject of the museum (e.g. astronomy), the way the knowledge is presented (e.g. interactive displays, room-size demos, theatrical performances, ...), or the governance/funding structure (e.g. municipal, private, ...). As such, having "museum=science" with "subject=astronomy" is sufficient. | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | (continuation) In particular, the subject should not be "space science". Wikipedia describes "space science" as astronomy and astronautics. For this museum, looking at the astronautics topic, other than human spaceflight (which likely exists in all astronomy museum in the world anyway as general adjacent topic), iirc this museum does not talk about extraterrestrial colonization, life support systems, or cosmo-agri stuff. There is no (or just not much) astronautics in this museum; it still largely is just astronomy. | |
| 19 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186391412 ; closing. | |
| 20 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 21 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Can you not instant close a debated note? Space Exploration is its own Hall. `subject=` is used for the exact topic. At least it can be semicolon. `museum=` as you discussed is for the broadest categorization of museums. `museum:subject=` can be used for categorizing the topic. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Subject#Examples | |
| 22 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | `=astronomy` alone makes it seem it's focused on `planetarium` only. It has other panels and exhibits. | |
| 23 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It does seem like there is no *extra* debate, given the general inactivity, and no additional responses on my museum/subject interpretation. For me, following the Wiki definition, astronomy should simply "contain everything" which naturally includes "planetarium" and other stuff. Holding open for now to collect more info; but imo we should be pretty close to the true solution / tagging method. | |
| 24 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | You said "I am thinking perhaps", which seems you are undecided. And it needs progress on defining the use of `musuem=` , `subject=` , and `museum:subject=` | |
| 25 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | That was 6 months ago. It was definitely not final back then, but now I have some more (concrete) ideas, which was written down in this note. Still, pretty sure we are almost there. | |
| 5267124 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo/issue: some parts of Heung Yip Road should be bridges |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | For future reference: This is a "bridge-over-culvert" area. Similar examples and tagging practice can be found at e.g. Tai Chung Road, Tsuen Wan. | |
| 5419502 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | concern: I heard there is fallen scaffolding in this neighbouhood? Does this count as medium term closure? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Does it take that long? Reassess after a week | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Common sense: fallen scaffolding doesn't take 6 months to clean up. Propose closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | I quote https://programme.rthk.hk/channel/radio/trafficnews/index.php?d=20260727 > 長沙灣道危險棚架已清理：來回方向，介乎大南西街與興華街之間的全線現解封。2026-07-27 HKT 06:38 Closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Let's clarify this "common sense", at least from my perspective: - Short term: around 3 days, top 1 week max - Medium term: at least 1 week, probably for until 1 month - Long term: at least 1 month It was not immediately clear how bad the situation was. It's pointless to invoke "common sense" as a talking point. For example, an effective clean up would take 1 day, while if the structure is messy, this could take a few days, and would warrant "medium term closure". @kingkingHK while you are confusingly fixated on this notion of "common sense", I raised this note because obstruction to Cheung Sha Wan Road can be locally significant, at least in terms of general neighbourhood accessibility. It's more than just the duration of the situation. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Can see the situation is resolved IRL. Closing. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | OSM require changes to last for at least 6 months to warrant a changeset. "could take a few days" still fails to justify an osm changeset/note. I genuinely cannot comprehend how fallen scaffolding can cause any sort of damage that cannot be cleaned up in 6 months. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Jacking this back to "open". I fail to find this 6-month "requirement", but can find a similarly-worded "guideline". We at best can only offer guidelines since we won't always know everything before we offer these info, and we are supposed to digest the guidelines based on the local situation. Estimations are often based on personal experience, so not much to elaborate/converge on that. @kingkingHK maybe I am just too dumb. Can you find this 6-month "requirement" for me? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | For example, I can find this forum post, which states a guideline of 6-month unavailability https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-temporary-road-closure-based-on-government-announcement-copyright-and-data-reliability-issues/136704/3 Coming from the DWG, because they can never always know everything, it is only a general guideline, and not a hard requirement. My personal take is that, given HK is a very dense city-centric place, we can do it much more frequently e.g. 1-month closure can also be considered long-term. Again, the above DWG post and my interpretation above are still guidelines, and not hard requirements. @kingkingHK where may your quoted requirements be found? | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Please don't discuss general questions in Notes. It isn't specific to here. | |
| 5381910 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | lecolibri258 ♦73 | "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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | No response. imo unlikely for shop to exist in 2 levels, but it being Admiralty neighbourhood is somewhat believable. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | They exist. In the same venue, shops can occupy non-adjacent store spaces, or even different floors. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | But you misunderstood this one. It's 2th floor, not 2 floors. https://www.facebook.com/printing.eccolor/ | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I somehow could not correctly explain that I am aware that shops in general can span over multiple floors (albeit rare), but I see in this case there was simply a misinterpretation. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186709679 ; closing. | |
| 5416561 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue/concern: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12995394372 Should probably be marked as "demolished peak"; can't have a peak inside a (flat) football field. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Protecthkname's work again. I would have fixed it immediately without making a note. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I'm here to see whether it's allowed to use natural=peak to indicate a flattened elevation level. Sounds weird, but I am somewhat open to suggestions and guidance for this topic. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I am aware natural=plateau exists, but what if we need to indicate the "highest point" in the plateau (if exists)? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Afaik OSM does not map elevation. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Flattened summit would be fine. But this is not the summit, not higher than Sau Ming Rd. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | protecthknames aside, this still points towards being a "demolished peak", just like how e.g. Kong Nga Po Sheung Shui gets a demolished peak as part of the training center flattening. Kong Nga Po is a legit hill name, and (hopefully) this ancient name is/was also legit. | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186705995 ; closing. | |
| 5376017 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲西炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Active military area; cannot confirm/deny. Closing. | |
| 5376013 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲南海岸炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Active military area; cannot confirm/deny. Closing. | |
| 5376008 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲中央炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Active military area; cannot confirm/deny. Closing. | |
| 5375990 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 百夫长炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Active military area; cannot confirm/deny. Closing. | |
| 5375999 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 昂船洲东炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Active military area; cannot confirm/deny. Closing. | |
| 5375969 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 亚比安炮台(昂船洲炮台群) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 what youve brought up, id say to leave it up to discussion before anything is done | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By Gwulo https://gwulo.com/node/21091 it says the status is unknown. It is not definitely clear that the battery is really demolished. Granted we can't fully rely on Gwulo for decision-making, but given that the site is inside a continuously-active military area, there is no realistic way to even confirm/deny this note anyway. Might as well just close this directly. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | from what i understand, way/449189871 is in place of the albion batteries. comparing aerial from the past, it was demolished to make way for previously stated building | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Active military area; cannot confirm/deny. Closing. | |
| 3654302 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | --- | Number of storeys: 22 Units per floor: 10 Population: 589 |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | hersonsl | ||
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | why is this note still active | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | `population=` exists, and the 2021 census gives Tsui Chuk Garden population as 10071. However, the wiki says `population=` should only be used on `place=`. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | General blunder by past self for suggesting to recheck level/unit correctness. I can't seem to find any usable sources for this, but supposedly there should be ancient sales brochures which should contain these info. Unsubscribing for now. | |
| 5424877 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic Note: scheduled for opening in August. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Reference: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202607/28/P2026072700287.htm | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | End of day reached; let's do this. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186705155 ; closing. | |
| 5034400 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Zuborg2012 ♦1 | ||
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186704782 ; closing. | |
| 5309379 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | At least we are making sure we know the FMC is at a separate building not affected by the reconstruction. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Fine, although I still disagree, this issue is so trivial and nonconsequential I don't even want to spend my energy debating, so whatever. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186704228 ; closing. | |
| 5426200 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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: 2026-07-14T00:42:02Z POI name: Kwan Ying Bakery POI types: shop-bakery #organicmaps ios 2026.07.23-6-ios |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | No idea whether the bakery is intended for #175 or #177, but by 2025 street imagery, definitely cannot find this. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Also, cross-checking older (2017 Kaart) imagery, still cannot find the bakery, despite being claimed as "from Kaart". I will just delete and remake. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186643358 ; closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | As usual this is simply inaccurately positioned. Please don't delete for this reason alone. https://hongkongsignboardcalligraphy.com/君盈麵包-kwan-ying-bakery/ https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fst/files/Traders_who_imported_distributed_the_lard_produced_by_Chang_Guann.pdf | |
| 5294906 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100824558 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; oudated data? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Can you update your description template, already explained in last https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286430 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186591855 ; closing. | |
| 5374730 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 白沙湾炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I have read that the park is unavailable until October: https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/60349826/%E9%AF%89%E9%AD%9A%E9%96%80%E5%85%AC%E5%9C%92-%E6%B8%AF%E7%89%88%E7%81%AB%E7%A5%9E%E5%B1%B1-%E9%9A%94%E9%9B%A2%E8%A8%AD%E6%96%BD%E6%8B%86%E8%B5%B0-%E5%85%AC%E5%9C%926-1%E8%B5%B7%E6%9A%AB%E5%81%9C%E9%96%8B%E6%94%BE4%E5%80%8B%E6%9C%88 Therefore, unsubscribing. | |
| 5374702 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十三座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 in OpenStreetMap. Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc. 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. Sharing a link to the maps osm.wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Nah. We cannot find the "Block 13" in the map. This note is valid. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I have read that the park is unavailable until October: https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/60349826/%E9%AF%89%E9%AD%9A%E9%96%80%E5%85%AC%E5%9C%92-%E6%B8%AF%E7%89%88%E7%81%AB%E7%A5%9E%E5%B1%B1-%E9%9A%94%E9%9B%A2%E8%A8%AD%E6%96%BD%E6%8B%86%E8%B5%B0-%E5%85%AC%E5%9C%926-1%E8%B5%B7%E6%9A%AB%E5%81%9C%E9%96%8B%E6%94%BE4%E5%80%8B%E6%9C%88 Therefore, unsubscribing. | |
| 5356623 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | From Mapillary imagery, we can see the shop space is gone, and replaced by something else. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186382854 ; closing. | |
| 5356624 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Can't really confirm how this was originally mapped, but from latest Mapillary imagery we can see the shop space is gone. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186382854 ; closing. | |
| 5366383 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Strangely, while the website exists as https://cantonkitchen.hk/ , the shop is actually closed. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186381979 ; closing. | |
| 5391327 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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: 2026-06-24T00:53:17Z POI name: Casa Hotel POI types: building tourism-hotel #organicmaps ios 2026.06.24-17-ios |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We have website http://casa487.com.hk/en_chi/ but also news report https://www.hk01.com/%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/60355351/%E7%B5%90%E6%A5%AD%E6%BD%AE-%E6%B2%B9%E9%BA%BB%E5%9C%B0casa-hotel%E5%AE%A3%E5%B8%835-31%E7%B5%90%E6%A5%AD-%E5%8E%BB%E5%B9%B4%E6%9B%BE%E5%85%A8%E5%B9%A2%E6%94%BE%E5%94%AE | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186381806 ; closing. | |
| 5417979 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | Hi, the metro/underground/MTR lines are not exactly aglin with real routs, especialy in the cases where is rote determined as bridges, tunnels - not under groud, railway paths. This high schematics presentation is confused and not represent reality. As second in some cases is the railway sa light train or tram showed as metro. For example the norden west district of Hong Kong, where is light trains and also MTR(metro), booth of this transports is marked as metro lines. They are independent in operation but they have same owener stock company with goverment majority. Because in othr city (Prague) is not tram line marked as metro. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Underground railway tracks being imprecise is a known limitation. Light rail is not tagged as metro. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We try to ensure good accuracy of railway lines, but there's a limit to that. I see CoMaps has a "railway layer" which contains self-interpreted railway lines rendering that does not match irl shape. Still, how CoMaps etc decide to render the irl railway tracks are up to their discretion, and has nothing to do with main OSM. At least on OSM those tracks are already correctly tagged (e.g. Northwestern Railway is already railway=light_rail). | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Transit layers are schematic, for conceptual understanding to ride the lines as passengers. Therefore they would deviate into straight segments, and stick to each other at interchange stations. | |
| 5417954 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | John Nevzer Avrung ♦28 | "In the comaps is this point shown as one metro/MTR station but it is two separated location, you cannot walk betwen Kowloon and Austin station as on one station building - no corridor or direct conection." OSM snapshot date: 2026-07-14T04:20:21Z POI name: 九龍 Kowloon POI types: railway-station-subway-hongkong internet_access-wlan #CoMaps android 2026.07.16-10-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Austin is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6610744414 though? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | To slightly add to this: Currently on CoMaps, Austin Station is displayed as a train station. This makes sense in local context, but when Kowloon Station has an MTR icon but Austin Station doesn't (and HSR also doesn't), this may be confusing ("station extension"). In addition, it seems at some point in the past, CoMaps and etc can't update their Hong Kong maps (why?). Maybe this issue is already fixed at data level, just that CoMaps etc can't obtain updated info. | |
| 5399215 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | jau4 ♦2 | Unable to answer "橋の下の車高制限はいくつですか？" – 耀興道 Yiu Hing Road (一般道（2車線以上）) – https://osm.org/way/264757497 via StreetComplete 63.2: no height limit |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Overall translation: what is the height limit (below the bridge)? No height limit. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Nglee ♦1 | 這座天橋為雙層設計，連接興東邨與東熹苑，橋面距離地面的高度約等同於一般大廈 4 至 5 層樓的高度。 | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Is this not a normal bridge? What "雙層設計" is there? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Honestly this note can be instant-closed imo. Not every bridge has a signposted height limit. No idea what action this note is looking for. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | jau4 ♦2 | ||
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Let's clarify the situation before we close this note, lest some time later someone (e.g. me) reopen this for "closing with no comment". @jau4 (who created this note via app) has already edited the bridge to have "maxheight:signed=no". This is consistent with "no height limit"; no signposted height limit exists at this location. @Nglee speaks of "double layered bridge". By street imagery (e.g. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.281019516748017&lng=114.21913074529994&z=18.336078076486757&pKey=379614576696593&focus=photo&x=0.5274136125678327&y=0.34184435178209843&zoom=0.04978463073287828 ) we can see the bridge does have two walkable layers, though this information does not seem too useful in understanding the height limit below the bridge. Legally speaking, HK should have building regulation where all bridges must be built with approx 5 meters above ground. If we want some value of "height limit", we can use the building regulation as a starting point. Closing. | |
| 5408243 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | this is a bridge |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The context is "integrated bridges", ie "bridges that do not have bridge joints". The current convention is "these do not get bridge=yes" but I semi-disagree with this convention. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Where do you get that "current convention"? (Box) culverts should be distinguished by whether there's a continuous structure all around the thing it's crossing. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It has joints. Is visible from remote imagery. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I observe and deduce conventions, but in this case I have missed the bridge joints. I partially blame the iD polygon rendering obscuring the joint lines. If have bridge joints, then should get "bridge=yes". I believe @Kovoschiz you would also agree? | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849477115/history/6 | |
| 5362130 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, no such shop. Can't determine/establish previous correct shop space, so we will just delete the node. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185995963 ; closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | > Can't determine/establish previous correct shop space Try harder? https://music852.com/shop_view.php?shop_id=261 | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | @kingkingHK very ambiguous for phrase "try harder". Generally a bad idea to use these "aggregation sites" to justify edits. These have copyright concerns (esp database rights) and we really can't guarantee their timely accuracy. By survey, doesn't exist. Now that Mapillary is seemingly back online (why unreachable?), can see music shop was right next to the congee shop (still exists), which then establishes shop space. The key has always been the physical placement in OSM in relation to other features. Again, very ambiguous for phrase "try harder", but previous changeset can be remade. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186007921 ; closing. | |
| 5368150 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, shop is gone. I am heavily suspecting there is some sort of partial internet outage. For example, as of writing, I am unable to view Mapillary imagery, which has something in this neighbourhood. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Now that the internet connectivity is resumed, we can continue. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186002051 ; closing. | |
| 5130601 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419082513 descriptive name, etc |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | xingshu | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, we do have a McDonald's here (bruh), but then given the popularity of the shop (read: very crowded), it's a bad idea to have this path in OSM, even for inappropriate rat-running. Moreover, the "proper" entrance is just right around the corner. This rat-running path really need not exist. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185997359 ; closing. | |
| 5396453 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | icepelican ♦11 | fuel=Gold and fuel=Platinum? is it that expensive here? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | lol Obvious inappropriate tagging. Caltex should have fuel classes that are branded as "Gold" / "Platinum". Honestly if Caltex could pump liquid gold, then your car would have disappeared because the liquid gold would have evaporated your car. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185995680 ; closing. | |
| 4744567 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | 官方路牌警告有山泥傾瀉風險，仍可通過 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | 楊展博 | ||
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Controversial but highly practical opinion: OSM does have "hazard=landslide" for this. The wiki page even has an example from Hong Kong. However, OSM is simply ill-suited for hike planning. In the foreseeable future, hikers will still be buying specialized maps printed by authoritative mapping agencies to properly plan their hikes (e.g. elevation, resupply, etc). Even if not using specialized maps, hikers should still pay attention to their surroundings during their hikes, as situations may have greatly changed in short notice, or no notice at all. This naturally includes landslide hazard warnings, which if truly exists irl, would be in visual range for hikers to notice. Be always prepared when hiking. There is therefore no outstanding value to add this into OSM, even if this really exists irl. This would be a different story if the signage is near/adjacent to urban areas. (Hong Kong is urban-centric after all). Closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | How so? Just because something should be expected to be seen irl, doesn't mean we can't map it. If it exists, it can be mapped. OSM does not have a notability requirement. No "outstanding value" is needed. I can't believe I have to say this for, like, the third time? | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Why did you mention `hazard=landslide` but conclude it's "no outstanding value"? | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Us inside Hong Kong and it being in rural area does not really sound like "outstanding". The notability non-requirement is to encourage people to make edits (i.e., "don't be afraid to make small/neighbourhood edits"). It does not seem to mean we can let these kind of rural notes clutter the notes view. Imagine there were 1000 notes scattered around saying "there is a missing rural feature here". If sticking faithfully to "notability non-requirement" and refusing to close them, then the notes interface is gonna be very unusable. I did clearly state this is controversial. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | "common" sense: It has never been a goal to close notes. The only goal is to resolve mapping errors as indicated by that note. Cure illnesses, not symptoms. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Why is `hazard=` not "outstanding"? | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Rural area is not outstanding. > This would be a different story if the signage is near/adjacent to urban areas. It is also common sense to keep the table clean and tidy. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 1. This makes no sense. The info gap there should be filled. 2. Can you stop repeating this meaningless line? | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Very disappointing. Unsubscribing. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | You are free to ignore, or unsubscribe on commented ones. But you shouldn't close them yourself. | |
| 15 | ~ 8 days ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | No such sign found irl. Closing. | |
| 2776728 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | Whcohi ♦239 | Small temple |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Highly doubt this; can't see anything on aerial imagery or government maps. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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, but this small feature in the wilderness does not seem to justify having an open note for itself, especially when the placement is awkward and treacherous to survey, and drone usage in HK is heavily regulated. Unverified feature has negligible impact. Closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Difficulty in surveying is not a valid reason to close a note without action. This should be "common" sense. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Correct. Is common sense. However, not gonna be good when things are starting to clutter the list/interface. There is a bit of managerial perspective when it comes to OSM notes, or maybe this is (unfortunately) only my opinion. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | "common" sense: It has never been a goal to close notes. The only goal is to resolve mapping errors as indicated by that note. Cure illnesses, not symptoms. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I don't know what others think about this, but I (unfortunately?) don't share your opinion on decluttering. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Closing Note doesn't solve anything https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-notes-ecosystem-possible-changes/145324/4 Having many tasks to do isn't cluttering. This is a UI problem if anything. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It is also common sense to keep the table clean and tidy. I was about to quote the same post mentioned by @Kovoschiz . You cannot just claim "UI problem" and then ignore the problem. It is a problem, and I am gonna solve it. | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 1. What is "keep the table clean and tidy"? You are simply throwing the info outside the window. 2. You should complain to OSM frontend Github, not closing Note. This doesn't solve it. | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Very disappointing direction. Individual users should not be responsible for bearing the brunt of systemic (UI) design blunder. But I will just check the linked post in more detail. | |
| 13 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | Qqqhdhdjz | ||
| 14 | ~ 6 days ago | reopened | Qqqhdhdjz | ||
| 1499178 | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | opened | --- | The route is ambushed and almost vanished up |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | There is already `trail_visibility=bad` after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96255409 , which should be enough to describe the "ambushed and almost vanished" situation. Then, resolved, closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | `=bad` can be on empty land. Should check the `obstacle=vegetation`, and decide whether it's `disused=yes` or even `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Observation/question: Look at the mountain ridge. The ridge-top path show very clearly on satellite imagery (brown ground contrasts strongly with green shrubbery etc). However, the path mentioned in this note cannot be observed from satellite imagery. Perhaps the path has been reclaimed by nature. Does this path even exist? Are we mapping hiking trails "because I successfully walked through the area like this" or "because the path can be clearly observed from the outside/entrance area"? | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Yes, correct, the purpose of this note is to check "does this path even exist?" Don't tell me you are going to close this note for being difficult to survey. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | There is managerial interest to keep the notes list/interface clean, which may sometimes involve closing very difficult / non-outstanding notes. The impact is expected to be minimal. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | "common" sense: It has never been a goal to close notes. The only goal is to resolve mapping errors as indicated by that note. Cure illnesses, not symptoms. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It is also common sense to keep the table clean and tidy. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I am forced to refer to a recent post https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-notes-ecosystem-possible-changes/145324 > There are frequent disputes in the community over the closing of notes. "It has never been a goal to close notes" is not an effective defense against "keeping the table clean". Do we wish to reiterate the findings of that post or are we gonna focus on dealing with urban data issues? Human attention is always limited; what good are there to keep "very difficult" notes open? | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Difficult doesn't mean they shouldn't be done. Difficult is valuable. What bad is keeping them open besides your particular use of the website? | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Very disappointing. I believe I should further elaborate my "very difficult" point at Discord. Unsubscribing. | |
| 5357832 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 therefore whether this path actually exists, is usable, and its actual conditions. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | that was from lung cheung road though, never seen if it actually leads down to bhr | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Slop maintenance would be immediately access=private and then case closed. Still, we can see what is going on at the lower side. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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/laapsaaptung/comments/1u5g0k9 ) | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, the lower half is indeed slope maintenance paths. Excluding those, no paths were identified to be going uphill. We will just split these paths up. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Rethinking of access values is still in progress, but access=private or access=no will work here. | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185844215 ; closing. | |
| 11 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 12 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Why did you delete it? | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Sorry, I really do not understand. Previous OSM data says "there is a very visible informal path from the low side to the high side. By survey, no path matching these descriptions were found. The changeset does not seem to have any problems. The changeset simply disconnects the aforementioned path from the lower side. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Didn't you say there's slope maintenance walkway? Is there no `informal=yes` between that and above? | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | OK, this can be confusing. At first we have https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493588817 which claims to be a very visible informal path that extends to 22.341001, 114.173138 . However, it turns out at that location it is just a maintenance staircase. You would expect to perhaps see a very cleanly-cut mud path that leads uphill at the quoted coordinates, but it's only a maintenance staircase built onto concrete-reinforced slope. I now heavily lean towards w1493588817 being "it doesn't exist" but then we have two people confirming that it exists (from top-side). The least we can do is to disconnect it from the low-side, because we definitely cannot see this from the low-side, and for navigation purposes this is good enough. | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | The stairs could be connected. Or as it has existed before, this should be `abandoned:highway=` | |
| 5394365 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | MonsterTank ♦1 | Unable to answer "Which direction leads upwards here?" – Steps – https://osm.org/way/255289396 via StreetComplete 63.2: This section is closed now |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | towards the left is upwards | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Honestly this question is just way too technical to be made available to gamified mapping apps. I don't know where to begin complaining. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Aside from the technicality, @HenryEK notice the remarks are saying that perhaps the entire staircase is closed/demolished. Contextually this makes sense because we know there are / will be some construction works to improve Po Shek Wu Road. We should proceed by checking whether this staircase really is gone. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | my weekly commute passes through, i can check within a few days the surrounding area has construction barriers for a while and po shek wu has had the central dividing barrier replaced iirc, the barriers obscure the staircase so it will probably be hard to check, but i am just going off what i vaguely remember i dont think the staircase has been demolished but rather just closed and will reopen some time later. i can find if they have an info sign with the planned completion date too | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Checking whether the staircase is open to the public is a valid todo. Can be tagged with `access=private` if not. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I would do "access=no" if the staircase is closed due to the ongoing construction works. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | staircase and subway seem to be blocked off with metal panels | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | If it is simply closed, then it should be `access=private` because construction workers can still use it. If it is being actively demolished and reconstructed then just make it `highway=construction` and let data consumers imply the rest. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The access tag topic (pending) is leaking. I will just no-explain re-recommend "access=no" and finish. The explain part is pending at Discord. | |
| 11 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @HenryEK any updates on this note? | |
| 12 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | i havent paid much attention but the surrounding is mostly unchanged so id assume that applies to the staircase too | |
| 5357794 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Probably for "Angus Steak and Wine" https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9408983817 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, note is correct. Interestingly there does not seem to have any online info of any resembling steakhouse at this neighbourhood. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185954852 ; closing. | |
| 5357793 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, this still exists. Perhaps clustering click wrong, but whatever. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Because positioning is bad, and details are incomplete, there is still something to be done. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Collectively resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185954852 ; closing. | |
| 2464998 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | By survey, indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Then, perhaps we just need to clarify the trail feasibility, and then we can finish. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed. But for a few hiking-related notes (including this), the mapping could be made much easier with 1996 government maps, which is why I procrastinate a bit and wait until permission to use pre-1997 maps. But honestly I haven't wrote to LWG, and I am pessimistic about a response, seeing that the LWG apparently hasn't met for nearly half a year. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | iirc Crown Copyright (Colonial Office) is the usual 50 years. Ignoring the LWG, per the Joint Declaration, the Crown Copyright is still in effect. That would put us to 2046. To be honest with you, a clean notes list is much better than just waiting to 2046. I can't be sure sure whether I would be around at OSM till 2046. Same applies to you. Just do a simple changeset and close this. A clean table is better than a 20 year wait. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | In other words: If you are trying to write to the LWG in the hopes of them printing a response saying "British Hong Kong copyright can be automatically invalidated before reaching the natural lifespan by using some obscure technical trick" then I am gonna tell you, this is an extremely unlikely outcome. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | ...? Crown Copyright is Open Government License, which I reasonably suspect to be compatible with OSM. This is not an invalidation or technical trick of any sort. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | OK, now that you are getting into the details, let's briefly dive in. Who made those maps? (HK or UK?) If UK, then yes Crown Copyright (the OG one), and Open Government Licence. Proceed. If HK, then while it largely "starts off" from UK Crown Copyright, it notably has diverged post-1997. Legal reading is required, but I have some quick findings: Cap 528, para 182 ("Government copyright"). Was the map buyable? Other than that, no obvious trick to use. Seems to follow standard copyright restrictions, as previously deep-dived at Discord. (e.g. "no copying maps" vs "non-resemblance of derivative works"). | |
| 5304217 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 198 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Possibly incomplete work of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1491526318 ? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Correction : possibly incomplete work of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180258566 ? | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @vectorial8192 It's entire possible OP just doesn't know about the house number. I don't know why you have to write a changeset comment to him. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I don't know why you have that conclusion. Given that the same changeset freshly provided the many houses in the area (with housenumbers!) but missed out housenumber for only a few houses, it is not possible to rule out editing mistakes. Editors will sometimes forget about something when doing long changesets; e.g. happens to me sometimes. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | It does not sound implausible that OP only knew some of the housenumbers. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It seems improbable that only a small percent is unknown. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | This is getting nowhere. What I am suggesting is that the probability of OP forgetting the housenumbers is much larger than the probability that the OP simply did not know the housenumbers. Then @kingkingHK how can you be sure that OP definitely didn't know? That it is definitely not human error? I gave example of how human error can contribute to this. How can you be sure that OP definitely didn't know? | |
| 5396809 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | missing english name (?) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I can see this "rehabilitation garden" is a common hospital facility across multiple hospitals. Multiple references at various websites over many years. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185827111 ; closing. | |
| 5383053 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo: new highway bridge to be opened soon (what is the scope of Route 5?) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Aside from the (new) scope of Route 5, what would be the (new) scope of the expressway area? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | awhchk ♦8 | According to video footage, the expressway ends right at the fork at the start of the new bridge section. There does not seem to be any chainage markers for Route 5 on the bridge and the in-between section of Kwai Chung Rd (there is one (14.0 E) on the right side of Tsuen Wan Road right under the MTR tracks). No signs indicating the start or end of Route 5 either. The destination sign still has the Route 5 shield for the rightmost lane but that is not authoritative. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Videos are not usable on OSM (copyright concerns), but maybe existing traffic notices by the TD can explain the scope of expressway. Still, We can do a site visit to try to see if we have any effective hints on the actual Route 5 scope. | |
| 2865034 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | This portion of route is blocked. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | It is covered in dense vegetation, but definitely not covered by anything. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | not blocked* sorry | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We do have "informal=yes" here. We can add in extra "visibility=bad" but given that it is illegal to chop trees (?), it seems like this path will eventually be reclaimed by nature, and then we can just delete it in the future. PS: perhaps the chop-tree laws only concern the country park area, which does contain this path section. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185580534 ; closing. | |
| 5379154 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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-ios |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185542711 ; closing. | |
| 5189634 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | High |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | (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 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Refers to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4777909123 , which has no name. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185542117 ; closing. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 1. It's obviously inaccurate positioning 2. That's not how addressing works. Buildings are commonly addressed with a single number in a range, here 80 in 70--84. 3. Please fix it. Don't delete directly shops directly, especially when it contains an address. It still represents a store space. This makes tracking and updating them more difficult later, wasting previous user's work, and increasing next's effort. | |
| 5343890 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | crossrowlatebrain ♦33 | "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-FDroid |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185541909 ; closing. | |
| 5078374 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433869 What is this? Does this actually exist? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | The quoted node was created in 2024 when everything from 2019 should have vanished. But you can try. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | You never know. To some foreigners, the protests never stopped. We can do trigo. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185540786 ; closing. | |
| 5078375 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11620433769 What is this? Does this actually exist? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | By survey, nothing here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185540282 ; closing. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Sometimes someone may put some excercise equipment in the wild, then it becomes gone. Could happen. | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | But it's indeed low confidence from spammy Organic Maps together with the other `=artwork` | |
| 5270671 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo/issue: verify physical separation |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not too sure what you mean by "sectional scan", but future reference: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=22.374573389378966&lng=113.98710550320993&z=18.736745870469665&pKey=1016588394374034&focus=photo and other images in the same capture. | |
| 5360200 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: LRT stop will be renamed on 5 July, according to online info |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185117821 ; closing. | |
| 4434946 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Prepare to reactivate the old platforms (irl construction nearing completion) |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Worst case this will wait for YOHO WEST Phase 2 to complete, which is expected to be in 2026. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Online info says platform 1, 3, and 4 has reopened today whereas platform 2 and 5 will reopen in July. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | (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 aerial imagery (fully covered) I think we can omit "was:*=*". --------- Broader vibes, if as per @Kovoschiz OSM is not a real estate software, then we can consider these rails "brand new", since those really were indeed fully destroyed at some point. My ancient original plan was to place the note, then later hand-draw the new rails. It just turns out Kovoschiz decided to undelete the relevant segments, and here we are, | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | If it's only slightly changed and not moved significantly, no need to redraw. Simply adjust it. | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 dimensions. | |
| 13 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1104518518 ancient todo |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | New towns don't have well-defined boundaries either. Not sure what can be done here. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Yes they have, according to OZP, Census, PDD/PPU, etc. However, this needs to be distinguished from addresses. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @Kovoschiz May you provide more info so that we know what action should be done in order to close this note? | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | But what do you want to know? | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | @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. | |
| 9 | ~ 29 days ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @Kovoschiz any updates on this note? | |
| 10 | ~ 24 days ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Waiting for the geocoder to refresh | |
| 5208863 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,576 | 唐人茶居 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1566866228/history is it really amenity=restaurant and shop=kiosk at the same time? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I mean, this is not completely unbelievable... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,576 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It's `=general` | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,576 | And for shop in shop - I would map both as separate objects. Maybe outer one as an area? | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Mateusz Konieczny ♦41,576 | well, note can remain open until someone can survey this location | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | pinging with no notification @kingkingHK | |
| 13 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 at least document this unusual irl situation. | |
| 15 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185534412 ; closing. | |
| 4895339 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | Most of the village is unmapped |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 clarify this area, they will/should do it by themselves. We do not need OSM notes to indicate so; at a glance it's still very easy to know this area is poorly mapped. This area doesn't seem to hold any outstanding value or have any emergent situation to warrant an OSM note. Just the "general stream" should be sufficient. Therefore, closing. | |
| 3145328 | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | opened | ckyu | there is a gate which is locked by villaget |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | @kingkingHK do you vaguely remember where you encountered dogs? This may hint towards an area where everything within is `access=private`. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 Ho Chau Road), and encountered a gate at around https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5043794717 . Not sure if this is the one this note is referring to. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Depending on the gate material/construction, I would expect a shadow line on the aerial imagery, but I could not find this. | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185530110 ; closing. | |
| 5034335 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185521230 ; closing. | |
| 5386225 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802069339 descriptive name (?????) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | It's just a dead end footpath source: survey | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185490481 ; closing. | |
| 5374781 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 舂坎角炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185489793 ; closing. | |
| 5374774 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 赤柱炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | There are no batteries here. Closing. | |
| 2434008 | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | opened | --- | Dogistic Limited 一寵愛有限公司 |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | 楊展博 | ||
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | According to the Company Registry, a company with the same name has been dissolved in October 2020. | |
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Then, it seems we may close this? | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 if the named feature exists. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 features in extra rural areas. | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Timmy Wong HK | ||
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 13 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 has an HQ. (The "HQ" is probably a car anyway.) Then, this note is invalid/just an ad. Closing. | |
| 5128521 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | Todo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813803780 name |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | typo needs fixing and requires chinese name only? or is there more to do here | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185418889 ; closing. | |
| 5150364 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1213995468 construction finished? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185417079 ; closing. | |
| 5188738 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6330287444 I doubt this exists anymore. |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | The entire university is still `access=private`; I think it is more likely removed than not so can delete first. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | theoretical possibility of loc_name | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185416384 ; closing. | |
| 5188736 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: descriptive name https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6309742344 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | The feature type is also wrong. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185415845 ; closing. | |
| 5188594 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | There is a new building on construction and will be finished by next season |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Larry_marcon | ||
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | reopened | Larry_marcon | ||
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Apparently, the entire university is still `access=private`. I guess we would have to wait until aerial imagery updates this. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 stream". | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185415153 ; closing. | |
| 5037695 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Seems like it has. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185413050 ; closing. | |
| 5034341 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?) |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Any updates to this note? (semi regular regional note review, to try to close low-hanging notes and declutter the map) | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185411542 ; closing. | |
| 5214756 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | concern: I don't think these are cycling crossings. Or, there is a mapping mistake. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Given that Hong Kong does not define "cycle crossings", I will just refactor these to be regular crossings. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185410079 ; closing. | |
| 5175576 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: new u-turn lane? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1481293106 ...??? What's the plan here? | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | ...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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 5366384 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Referring to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11395656769 Absolutely no extra info, instant delete. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185385463 ; closing. | |
| 5213335 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Yes | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | pauline6luk | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Yogicat ♦13 | ||
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | This slipped past our notifications. Is this really done yet? | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Yes https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183597599 I can testify that my survey 2.5 months ago agree with the quoted changeset | |
| 5347052 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: closed |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185261476 ; closing. | |
| 5376347 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 域多利炮台遗址 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I do not believe HKU has ever researched or deployed artillery systems. Closing. | |
| 5376335 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 的撒大 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5379723 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | 香港注冊會計 | 香港注冊會計 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5286453 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260718 ; closing. | |
| 5292908 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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/deletion process. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260447 ; closing. | |
| 5292909 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.saizeriya.com.hk/shop-info/?lang=en agrees | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260079 ; closing. | |
| 5152477 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Don't know what it looked like originally, but indeed can't find any "railway models" here so this is believable. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185260005 ; closing. | |
| 5286451 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5286446 "EXXO" is not a known fuel company; did you mean "Esso"? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | By survey, indeed this is an Esso. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185259536 ; closing. | |
| 5294038 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1505900060 descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | probable motivation https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5276301 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | No https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-05-13#Ticket#2024040710000103_–_Database_for_importing_license_question | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Jon Wang ♦40 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 appropriate than a descriptive name. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed. Further reading: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185256327 ; closing. | |
| 5327315 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | clsunny ♦1 | 海下應在此位置，不應在啟才學校附近。 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Refers to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11009757918 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Makes sense. "isolated_dwelling" should be placed at houses, not at schools. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185211089 ; closing. | |
| 5378014 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: street distortion |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | offender: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185172923 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Why don't you revert it then? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185216672 | |
| 5377884 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: The boundary-crossing facility is not inside Frontier Closed Area? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | -> access tag review | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Correction: this is its own type of Closed Area. Closing. | |
| 5374564 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 鲤鱼门炮台 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5040215422 ; closing. | |
| 5374725 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Already added `historic=fort` (which can be improved) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/557930264 | |
| 5374728 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第五座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十七座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第十八座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第二十座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第二十一座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十一座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十二座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十三座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Rosy-xzy | 旧鲤鱼门军营第三十四座 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 。 | |
| 5366682 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo: it seems this bus terminus is now open? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We do have this https://www.td.gov.hk/tc/traffic_notices/index_id_87349.html | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184907400 ; closing. | |
| 5361745 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | Jon Wang ♦40 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Are you trying to point out any issues in osm data? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 through this by virtue of "no Border Permit". Not sure how Palestine can help us in this case. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. | |
| 5360199 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: road closure on 28 June |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Desync. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184704033 | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Someone did something: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184731579 | |
| 5300387 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 for navigation / mapmatching purposes involving Hang Shun Street (west side). |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your experimental tagging method. Can you discuss this on e.g. Discord first? | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 haven't started even one of them, and it appears that you are never going online on Discord, I/we can't wait indefinitely. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Don't worry, I will just force-revive this when that happens. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 97% closed should be top among cities. Germany is 95%. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 "efficiency" here, but activity is also significantly lower there. Metric has limited ref value. Still, back to topic, give to Discord. The vibe is to ensure the notes side is stable, and then do Discord. | |
| 5339859 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659032301 dead sources, irl mismatch (Dedicated Rehousing Estate); what's going on here? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | By survey, they are really building a dedicated rehousing estate here. I mean, on Esri imagery, we can see the foundations. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | My apologies for the false alarm. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184479435 ; closing. | |
| 5346712 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | crossrowlatebrain ♦33 | "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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | By survey, it's streetside. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184478978 ; closing. | |
| 5323246 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | (Note: looking up land deed etc does not seem trivial, and should be tracked as longer-term discussion.) | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. This is kind of the forgotten historical remnants that can really influence what tags to give to O King Road. What if the enforcement guys at Ocean Shores got it wrong and in fact O King Road should be highway=tertiary ? On-the-ground principle would use the as-is situation, but we can indicate the legal access level somehow. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Question answered with no more activity; propose closing. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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. | |
| 5346713 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | crossrowlatebrain ♦33 | "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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5346713 Duplicate note complaining about duplicate data. Ironic. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Correction: dupe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5346712 | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Minor comment: Bad network connectivity can cause innocent resends and duplicates. | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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. | |
| 5346741 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | crossrowlatebrain ♦33 | "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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184393498 ; closing. | |
| 5348355 Category: CoMaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | byhg ♦39 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | byhg ♦39 | ||
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | "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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184393265 ; closing. | |
| 5351130 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: Shell does not have a location here; new operator? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, disused and boarded up. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184390032 ; closing. | |
| 5351135 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo: clarify fuel |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184387602 ; closing. | |
| 5286443 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173 extremely unlikely petrol station |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Obvious Lying to Validator https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4851750173/history | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184387156 ; closing. | |
| 5352458 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | 邓氏宗祠 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Feature already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114392703 ; closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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「沒有名稱」的情況。 探索龐大而多樣的 OSM 生態系統，即可找到能夠恰當展示名稱的 app / 網頁。 | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | reopened | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | ||
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | |
| 5264909 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: Foot path(s) cutting into a construction area? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Upon closer look, not enough information. How does this intersect with the parking area on the south side? | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, the polygon is just misleading. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184091140 ; closing. | |
| 5342638 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: KMB 41M: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14193642 Validator warning: route scheme is unspecified; clarify "public_transport:version" |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184082286 ; closing. | |
| 5034355 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We do have an FMC here, plus some other stuff. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184053278 ; closing. | |
| 5034356 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic (it seems OSM doesn't have this?) |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed there is a Family Medicine Clinic here. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184052937 ; closing. | |
| 4607075 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | Sewage Treatment Plant |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | There are no evidence supporting this claim. Closing. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | @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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | It's very rare to have absolutely no remotely-related online info for this feature. Unsubscribing. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Exactly, because there's no online info, so this is not armchairrable, so I reopened the note. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | And, whatever this plot of land is, it's so tiny I would not expect any online info. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/sustainability/environment/water.page https://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/en/article/31251/hong-kong-airports-triple-water-system | |
| 5341908 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | Angus Lee ♦45 | "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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | name:en=Bridal Tea House Hotel There are multiple items right here... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184044550 ; closing. | |
| 5286462 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183976581 ; closing. | |
| 5296568 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: physical separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Aerial imagery is showing something that looks like concrete slabs/kerbs. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Yes, which is physical separation. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | First, we split ways with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183973843 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Then, we clean up relations with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183973916 | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | All done; closing. | |
| 5326149 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | concern: By survey and recent bus videos, the border control area is signposted as "Airport Control Area". Then, what do? Give to aerodrome? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I haven't looked into the details yet, but first thought: airport control area =/= airport? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | @vectorial8192 Only the part in between belongs to AA (previously quarantine facility) | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | @kingkingHK I did use `designation=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30774625 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209353389 | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 land clearance (and possibly sea clearance re SkyPier), so we may need to figure this one out ourselves without asking at the global level. I am leaning towards giving the Bridge (and possibly the SkyPier) to the aerodrome. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 maybe we have immediately usable information that we are not aware of. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Is it not for Airport City Link only, and SkyPier only? The area around quarantine was for supporting Airport, Airport City, and Expo. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 aerodrome, assuming no "in/out multipolygon" laziness. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | Skytopia only includes the quarantine facility, and waters. Doesn't say the Clearance Building belongs to AA. | |
| 4760944 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | Replace the Brazilian term "Ônibus" with "Autocarros" |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | tengtiao ♦151 | ||
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 5324037 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183639194 ; closing. | |
| 5324843 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo: physical separation along median (check Mapillary) |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183777664 ; closing. | |
| 5240345 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: Where are the station exits? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183557235 ; closing. | |
| 5034361 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, this is a poorly-mapped single-purpose facility. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183548943 ; closing. | |
| 4957095 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 map this situation in OSM? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 highly unusual/unexpected. | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 LOHAS Park station, in which case it should get `railway:preferred_direction=both`, which you have already done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171679335 (although it also has `oneway=reversible` which should probably be removed). Add that with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485648065 having `railway:preferred_direction=forward` and `oneway=reversible`, it seems like the current mapping can express the situation well. | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175614946 | |
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 deployments and blockages. The concern is not on the physical rails themselves, but the logical "MTR service" relations. How do we even describe which rail is which direction when the pathway(s) is/are vibe-based? | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I think we can map the relations if we can somehow identify a more commonly used route/main route. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Cf. island platform termini with reversing tracks before the station | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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-rail), and then reach the real x-rail as entering on the west side. This does not seem to match what is currently depicted, which shows the curve as entering on the east side. aka memory says https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.298182/114.272152 should have the rail continue and merge into https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/22.297435/114.271097 | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Discord (so we cover almost all the possible cases and discover the relevant principles), and then post executive summaries to the OSM wiki for the wider OSM mappers to look at. Now hopefully people are not the kind of "intuition" guy like me and will therefore read the wiki... | |
| 16 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | In terms of FOSS: Matrix somewhat works (but no threads and posts) | |
| 19 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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. | |
| 5322545 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | Tung Chung East 21st Century Business Hub (aka Tung Chung East Business Hub) https://www.som.com/news/tung-chung-groundbreaking/ |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 2 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5322197 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | 1 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Meaning is unclear; closing. | |
| 5146803 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Duplicate funicular station "Garden Road". What is the standard for mapping funicular stations? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I think the station was moved recently? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 couldn't handle the extra length, and so the stop position was moved uphill to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2525250101 . However, all other stuff (e.g. ticketing) still takes place at the downhill building. Then, how should we describe this situation? | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Then, sounds like this stop has simply expanded, and the platform moved. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | But the midway stations really are request stops though. I don't see the problem, or how it relates to this note. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Please see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183154394 works. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 a polygon for the bus terminus, we don't need to keep a single node alongside the (new) polygon. And most of the time we prefer the polygon because it shows the scope/extent of the feature, so what usually happens is e.g. I draw the bus terminus polygon and then transfer all the data from the bus terminus node to the polygon and then delete the node. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | I vaguely remember a similar discussion about MTR stations, and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Sorry misclick. ...and I think the conclusion is that railway stations can stay as a node. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Anyway, adopted Kovoschiz's suggestion of `area:railway=station`. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183397689 | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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. Closing. | |
| 5179032 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | Learning Habitat Kindergarten (PSLP) |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183436619 ; closing. | |
| 5091914 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo: bus stop placeholders, etc.? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Community guides suggest doing it in JOSM, not in iD editor. I will leave this to the public transport mappers. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Bus paths fixed via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183434646 ; general issues (e.g. unmapped relation, outdated details, etc) give to general stream. Closing. | |
| 1385516 | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | opened | --- | King Nga Court Playground |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | closed | seewhyso ♦189 | Location should be at 22.44032,114.16609 and marked already, resolved | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I doubt it is walled with `access=private`; "gated communities" are rare in Hong Kong other than a few posh low-density estates. | |
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Newer HOS estates (e.g. this) are not posh but are walled off and access=private . Try it yourself. | |
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Anyhow, this location is easy to get to. I see no reason to not survey this to make sure. | |
| 11 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 signposted to be `access=private`. imo this is quite remote; remoteness is a subjective measure, and my remoteness scale is heavily urban-favored. I do not recall OSM having any notability requirements for mapping, but I for one won't be mapping this. A concern is the possible wrong signal to the general public that the park is open for general public. -------- To explain this in advance, my personal policy is to never map private stuff unless I can clearly see them from aerial imagery. | |
| 15 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | > 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 from aerial imagery. Also, I might be misunderstanding, but I thought `access=permissive` is used for "private area without physical barriers"? | |
| 16 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | `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, but the guards there can kick you out anytime at their discretion. Things may have changed after 2019, but afaik CUHK requires registration/logging at entry so is still "permissive", while PolyU requires pre-approval so becomes "private". Physical constraints can motivate OSM access tag, but imo it's dangerous to think about OSM access tag only using physical constraints. -------- To clarify "wrong signal", a concern is that the many renderers (e.g. OSM Carto) doesn't render non-path features differently when it is `access=private`. | |
| 17 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | `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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | If no further comments I will map the playground and tag it as `access=permissive`. | |
| 20 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I am leaning towards access=private ("semi-open") but other than this point, I have no more effective comment. | |
| 21 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 being lazy has no link to the legal (access) status of the park; legally, the park privately belongs to the estate, and the estate has legally signposted that only the residents may use the park. If this is not access=private then you are probably suggesting only military bases can ever possibly be access=private when actually military bases are generally considered by OSM as access=no ; or that only full-closed estates are access=private (e.g. Yu Nga Court, Tung Chung), which the Wiki explicitly disclaims and disagrees as per "no relations to barricades" principle. With risk of personal injury and defamation, @kingkingHK the way you approach this by "they aren't actively blocking me from getting in anyway" is highly alarming and concerning. These days I have kinda come up with a handy thinking system in deciding the access tag of features, which may be discussed and elaborated on Discord later. | |
| 23 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Well consider this: private roads with no guards and gates is `access=permissive` (e.g. Cityone Shatin); how is this different? | |
| 24 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 itself does not directly result in access=permissive ; extra reasoning is required. Ultimately the example is inaccurate but I can feel a point is being made. This example can be taken into consideration when I prepare the Discord discussion. | |
| 25 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | After rethinking, I now agree that this should be `access=private`. Resolved viahttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184260921 ; closing. | |
| 5036094 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | Family Medicine Clinic somewhere around here supposedly, but unclear how it is affected by the redevelopment works. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Not done yet; please don't resolve! | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183432974 ; closing. | |
| 5318728 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89595505 , etc. descriptive name |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183778116 ; closing. | |
| 5315594 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: fuel station duplicate mapping |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183412578 ; closing. | |
| 5296579 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: bridge has bollard separation; draw as two ways |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | This is extra easy because no bus relations are directly involved. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Or not. The bollards (Mapillary) extend towards the non-bridge section. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | We will start with the actual separation itself https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183032086 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | > The bollards extend towards the non-bridge section. Are you talking about the east side or west side? | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 continues the path separation to the traffic island itself. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Lgtm now, after https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183136566 ? | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Lgtm; propose closing. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 earlier changeset of @kingkingHK ) and the east side (todo). Ideally the east side should not take too long. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | East side done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183409060 | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Now, truly, all is done. Therefore, closing. | |
| 5312241 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: status? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | What is the status of this T2 concourse? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Under constrution. Read the news. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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%BA%E5%A2%83%E5%97%8E-15%E6%AB%83%E4%BD%8D%E9%81%B7%E5%85%A5-%E9%A4%90%E5%BB%B3-%E4%BA%A4%E9%80%9A > T2運廊登機預計和登機閘口預計2027年才正式啟用。 It mentions it will be opened in 2027. Then, we got an OSM data problem. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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, which may or may not reveal OSM issues. At second post, I noticed that the data is inconsistent, which confirmed an OSM issue. At subsequent posts I am gonna fix the discovered issue(s) for real. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 user) - any known solutions to this? (check the specs again or ask at forums, etc.) | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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, the only logical explanation is that you wrongly thought it has been opened, hence "read the news". If I had the time to fully explore the situation, I would not instant close this note without any action, because I would then be able to see that there is indeed a tagging mistake. But you must not expect me to do this. You must at least acknowledge that notes are for pointing out issues, not a notebook for you to track your thoughts. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 I put up here, I have (partial) suspicion the tagging may be wrong. Imagine an alternative reality where T2 Concourse actually opened together with the T2 Hall. Surely your reaction would be different, and you might help update the building tags. Why is that? It seems you are just disappointed that I am consistently submitting "low-quality" notes, rather than concerned that my mind is seemingly "unable" to discern OSM notes from a hypothetical "personal notebook". Let it be known that my OSM planning (if any) does not happen in OSM Notes. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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. | |
| 5166716 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | --- | the radar station ball thing is being dismantled |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14Znxy9BWRS/ agrees. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 believable info. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183159361 ; closing. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Isn't this note about the western radar? Your quoted article and changeset concerns only the eastern one. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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及更換雷達設施，該雷達站亦將被翻新，因此並沒有雷達儀器在站內。即雷達「大哥」在颱風來襲前，早已撤退。 The attached image does show the big ball being damaged, while the small ball is still fine. Image and text are consistent. The article shows the big ball (east side) has been scheduled for removal many years ago. Removing the east ball should be correct. --------- Then, the confusion seems to be whether the west ball is *also* removed, which I did not consider. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | What I mean is, the west ball is obviously removed. One should update that before closing this note. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 latest info. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 combining with this note that the west ball was removed after the imagery timestamp but before our observation, i.e. removed after Aug 2025 but before Mar 2026. | |
| 16 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Should be for real this time. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183398579 ; closing. | |
| 5180357 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: station is too small |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | for the observers, iirc a question was asked at Discord about "station area" vs "(many) station building parts" for underground MTR stations. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 the crowd may interfere with measurement. Also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2087499 But yes if you can somehow find a way to do this cheaply and conveniently then you can deduce exact range, and use dead-reckoning to add towards the real location, etc. | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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-copyright now) | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | If no effective conclusion, then at least we can fix the station building size. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | "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 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | OK, leaving open, but imo doesn't seem too interesting here; e.g., road crossing need not enter the MTR station. Unsubscribing. | |
| 5312369 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1322030181 name:zh of building? or no name? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Website of one of the tenants https://www.avseco.com.hk/zh-hk/contact : "機場行政大樓2座" | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Thanks for the finding. Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183261119 ; closing. | |
| 5034406 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Family Medicine Clinic (what should be happening here?) |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Probably at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1202258838 ? | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Indeed it is. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Redirect https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5309379 | |
| 4978548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | seewhyso ♦189 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | This is more of a renderer discussion rather than an osm one, isn't it? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | (`bridge:part=` is not a good format either, as `bridge=` isn't a feature, unlike `building=` ) | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 4. Minor note: I didn't bother to draw the whole IEC western `=viaduct` , so doing this is also a lazy hack | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 5. `ref=` is another factor that needs to be considered to define a `man_made=bridge` , aside from `name=` and `start_date=` (etc) | |
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | bpaz709394 | ||
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 10 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kmpoppe ♦3,729 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | @Kovoschiz does https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181152791 resolve this note? | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | No, I didn't do anything on them, only `layer=` | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Tbh I don't really understand what this note is asking for / what can be done to resolve this note. | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | That's a good question. But I thought IEC is effectively the de facto naming of the structure at the same time. | |
| 17 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Citation needed. If you ask 10 people what "IEC" is 11 of them will think of the road, not the bridge. | |
| 18 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It's effectively identical here though? If I ask what's that bridge, they will still answer IEC. | |
| 19 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 naming: It's the same old "both sides intertwine" theme again. Planning wants a road, gives it to engineering, and then a bridge gets built. The road (logical / conceptual) shares the same name as the bridge / structure (physical), and both sides can't separate. Bridges (or bridge joints) can have refs but obviously refs aren't names. | |
| 23 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Or maybe I have misunderstood the bridge joint tagging. | |
| 5025035 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Sing Mun River has fixme, presumably about boat access. However, afaik, there are no legal restrictions about boat access. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Well, if boats are not allowed, then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493816164 would not exist. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Wait, fixme was raised by Kovoschiz; discussion needed. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Well, at least for Shing Mun River, `boat=no` should be wrong. We can remove it, alongside with the `fixme=`. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | I will remove `boat=no` and `fixme=` from Shing Mun River if no further comments. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183345102 ; closing. | |
| 5305499 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705233079 suspicious traffic signals |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | This is only outdated. There was an intersection here where Wui Man Rd is connected with Austin Rd. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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. | |
| 5286470 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: review petrol station (confusing layering) |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | > `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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182981837 ; closing. | |
| 5286471 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: review petrol station (duplicate mapping?) |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Upon review, I read the graph/map wrong. Nothing to do here. | |
| 5141141 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | todo: this has been converted to a roundabout |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 broken beyond repair and I simply have no option but to redo it entirely, and I really don't want to do that. You might have experienced how it feels when dealing with Wo Yi Hop Road recently. Anyway, I will deal with this note myself. Within one week max. I will try to spend more time on resolving notes. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 hard requirement. We have our own circumstances, but the team-aspect issue with "confirm but no action" is that e.g. I cannot decide the following: - you really forgot, and I can/should do it - you are already cooking at JOSM, so I should stay away and do another note | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 about the latter here in e.g. Yuen Long. In the long term, maybe we could somehow split our work area or coordinate beforehand to prevent conflicts? I could send you pictures from my surveys if you need them. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Coordination, splitting, experiences etc is best discussed e.g. in Discord. (Soon™) | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 remapping. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 topologically the current sketch is fine, so we can begin work on transferring the bus relations. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 whether one of us is able to survey this place. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 bit off, but map-matching / navigation won't notice it. These are the kind of situation where the changeset can be made in e.g. < 5 mins. Other situations may require escalation into e.g. OSM Notes because e.g. the way forward is not obvious. eg ancient note at the TST Space Museum trying to see what kind of museum it is. Specific to this note, if the note wants a roundabout, then we now have a roundabout. At minimum, whether the roundabout is too big / small seems like can be given to near future because map-matching won't notice it, and some time later we are expecting newer aerial imagery anyway and then it is doable by anybody very quickly / easily. | |
| 14 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | (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 at a somewhat frequently mapped area (BBI) so I am not too worried we collectively "forget" about the need to provide updated geometry. I only hold open because of the desync, just in case there's something more to discuss. Or maybe the plan is to provide the geometry as part of the work on Pat Heung Road bridge, idk. | |
| 15 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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. | |
| 5270549 Category: Organicmaps | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vbertola ♦4 | "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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182979226 ; closing. | |
| 5286291 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813139621 "Feoso" is not a known fuel company; data mistake? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | is feoso not a fuel company? i remember a building with their name near lai chi kok | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | (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 one(s) is/are running this petrol station. Will do this Soon™. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182978580 ; closing. | |
| 5286430 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736802187 "Eco" is not a known fuel company; outdated info? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | @vectorial8192 It's you don't know. They existed before. Exited the market. It's Towngas. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | @kingkingHK It's not an adjective "eco" for eco-friendly. It's a noun. `brand:en=Eco` | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | HenryEK ♦42 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Red/white is SINOPEC or Esso, and the website https://www.sinopechongkong.com/retail_hk/driver_oil_network agrees. | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182974426 ; closing. | |
| 5302548 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | --- | Our Centre |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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，請參考： https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | kingkingHK ♦526 | ||
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | @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 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | ||
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 note is instant-closed, but with this extended discussion, leaving this open for a bit longer then. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Ok, understandable. Close this? | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Kovoschiz ♦2,284 | It's simply to close it with a comment. Not hoping for resposne. | |
| 5164303 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | substation=substation seems redundant |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Can observe/confirm this tag is picked up by OpenInfraMap for display purposes. Hmmm. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | ...I can't notice how OpenInfraMap renders this differently than any other substations. May you provide more info? | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I have not really determined whether this tag positively influences rendering, or that OpenInfraMap already renders this feature due to power=substation. | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Seeing that it renders identically with other `power=substation`s, I'd say it does not influence render. I.e. useless tag. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | If no further discussion I am inclined to simply remove all `substation=substation`. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I have nothing to add. This was only discovered while I was looking in detail at the railway. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183352652 ; closing. | |
| 5141822 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444187633 feels like a descriptive name, but I'm not sure. (Also, it should probably be "Ventilation") |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By survey, I can't get into here (poor/incomplete OSM data), but I intuitively believe the description. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182963664 ; closing. | |
| 5150201 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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/deevroman/better-osm-org , going to Layers > Map Notes > set "All Notes" | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | My armchair says that the road is ownership=private | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | 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 did not properly clean up the tags. | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182940740 ; closing. | |
| 5286465 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261873910 "Mobil" is not a known fuel company; did you mean "Esso"? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182936685 ; closing. | |
| 5286438 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | todo/issue: petrol station review |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | e.g., duplicated mapping? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | By website, there really is 2x same brand here. (wait for NSI preset) | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | I suddenly remember, NSI update timings are generally unpredictable. For convenience and task progress, can use existing NSI data for now. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182935120 ; closing. | |
| 5297353 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7186040 Validator warning: unusual value of distance ----------- Also, this bus relation is very broken. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | 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 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183109341 ; closing. | |
| 5292869 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | vectorial8192 ♦1,535 | issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6705014448 suspicious traffic signal |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | kingkingHK ♦526 | Should be referring to the Shau Kei Wan Road / Chai Wan Road / Aldrich Street junction. Same poor import that we dealt with before. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | kingkingHK ♦526 | Resolved via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183153560 ; closing. |